ARDELYX, INC. 10-K

ITEM 1. BUSINESS Company Overview We are a biopharmaceutical company founded with a mission to discover, develop and commercialize innovative first-in-class medicines that meet significant unmet medical needs. This includes adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (“IBS-C”), adult patients with chronic kidney disease (“CKD”) on dialysis suffering from elevated serum phosphorus, or hyperphosphatemia; and adult patients with CKD and/or heart failure with elevated serum potassium, or hyperkalemia. Since commencing operations in October 2007, substantially all our efforts have been dedicated to our research and development (“R&D”) activities, including developing tenapanor and developing our proprietary drug discovery and design platform. We have not generated any revenues from product sales. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $712.9 million. We expect to continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future as we prepare for commercialization of IBSRELA ® (tenapanor) in April of this year, seek to gain approval for XPHOZAH ® (tenapanor) for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis; prepare for the potential commercialization of XPHOZAH, if approved; incur manufacturing and development cost for, tenapanor; and incur development costs for RDX013. To date, we have funded our operations from the sale and issuance of common stock and convertible preferred stock, funds from our collaboration partnerships, which includes license fees, milestones and product supply revenue, as well as funds from our loan agreements with our lenders. Our Product Pipeline IBSRELA for IBS-C Our unique discovery platform and deep understanding of the primary mechanism of sodium transport in the intestine resulted in our discovery and development of IBSRELA, a first-in-class, FDA approved, sodium hydrogen exchanger 3 ("NHE3") inhibitor for the treatment of IBS-C in adults. IBSRELA acts locally in the gut and is minimally absorbed. By inhibiting NHE3, IBSRELA exerts a triple action mechanism. First, it blocks dietary sodium absorption, leading to increased intestinal transit time and softer stool to address constipation. Second, it decreases intestinal permeability to reduce abdominal pain, and, third, it decreases visceral hypersensitivity to reduce abdominal pain. The triple action mechanism of IBSRELA is differentiated from existing therapies and has been shown to provide significant improvement in abdominal pain, bloating, and constipation – with a quick onset of action and sustained efficacy. In clinical trials, treatment with IBSRELA has been demonstrated to result in improved quality of life versus placebo and patient treatment satisfaction. We plan to launch IBSRELA in the U.S. in April 2022. IBS-C is a gastrointestinal disorder characterized by both abdominal pain and altered bowel movements, estimated to affect 11 million people in the U.S. IBS-C is associated with significantly impaired quality of life, reduced productivity, and substantial economic burden. The introduction of new agents over the last decade has led to an established prescription ("RX") treated market with 9,000 writers accounting for 50% of the RXs. Despite the active use of GCC agonist therapies, 83% of Health Care Providers ("HCPs") report a significant unmet need for new therapies, and report that approximately 35% of the patients currently under their care do not adequately respond to the available treatments. When presented with the IBSRELA product profile, 75% of HCPs respond favorably, with the efficacy profile and novel method of action rated as the most compelling aspects of the product profile. In preparation for our commercial launch of IBSRELA, we have built a commercial organization highly experienced in launching novel therapies into specialty areas. The established nature of the market, limited number of players, concentration of prescribers, recognized unmet need, and favorable response to the novel mechanism IBSRELA product profile enable a targeted promotional effort centered on the 9,000 health care providers that account for 50% of IBS-C prescriptions. Central to the go to market strategy is a highly experienced specialty sales force, many with existing relationships across their GI target base, full company engagement, and innovative peer-to-peer and digital initiatives leveraging the rapidly evolving market dynamics in how HCPs receive information and interact with industry. 3 Table of Contents With a concentrated promotional focus on patients currently being managed for IBS-C by high writing HCPs - in contrast to the DTC centered, market building approach taken by the existing GCC agonists - competition for IBSRELA will come largely from the four prescription products indicated for IBS-C: Linzess (linaclotide); Amitiza (lubiprostone); Trulance (plecanatide) and Zelnorm (tegaserod). Additionally, over the counter products are commonly used to treat the constipation component of IBS-C, both alone, and in combination with the IBS-C indicated RX therapies. We have established commercial agreements with Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Industrial Development Co. Ltd. (“Fosun Pharma”) in China and Knight Therapeutics, Inc. (“Knight”) in Canada for IBSRELA for IBS-C. Knight is currently marketing IBSRELA in Canada. Development Candidate XPHOZAH: A New Approach for The Control of Serum Phosphorus in Adult Patients with CKD on Dialysis XPHOZAH is a first-in-class medicine being developed for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis. XPHOZAH has a unique mechanism of action and acts locally in the gut to inhibit NHE3. This results in the tightening of the epithelial cell junctions, thereby significantly reducing paracellular uptake of phosphate, the primary pathway of phosphate absorption. If approved, XPHOZAH would be the first therapy for phosphate management that blocks phosphorus absorption at the primary site of uptake. It is not a phosphate binder. In June 2020, we submitted a new drug application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for tenapanor for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis. The NDA was supported by three Phase 3 trials involving over 1,000 adult patients that evaluated the use of tenapanor for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis, with two trials evaluating tenapanor as monotherapy and one trial evaluating tenapanor as part of a dual mechanism approach with phosphate binders. All three Phase 3 trials met their primary and key secondary endpoints. On July 28, 2021, we received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA’s Division of Cardiology and Nephrology (the “Division”) regarding our NDA for tenapanor for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis. According to the CRL, while the Division agrees “that the submitted data provide substantial evidence that tenapanor is effective in reducing serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis,” the Division characterizes the magnitude of the treatment effect as “small and of unclear clinical significance.” Following an End-of-Review Type A meeting (“End of Review Meeting”) in October 2021, with the Division, we submitted a Formal Dispute Resolution Request (“FDRR”) in December 2021 to the Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology and Nephrology (“OCHEN”). The FDRR was focused on demonstrating that the data submitted in the NDA supported the clinical significance of the treatment effect of tenapanor. On February 4, 2022, we received an Appeal Denied Letter (“ADL”) from OCHEN. On February 18, 2022, we submitted an appeal of the ADL to the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of New Drugs (“OND”). If accepted, we expect a decision on the appeal to the OND in April 2022. While the CRL noted that in order for the NDA to be approved, we need to conduct an additional adequate and well-controlled trial demonstrating a clinically relevant treatment effect on serum phosphorus or an effect on the clinical outcome thought to be caused by hyperphosphatemia in adult patients with CKD on dialysis, the ADL provided a potential additional path forward involving the resubmission of the NDA (without conducting an additional trial) with a number of new analyses of each of our Phase 3 clinical trials; an assessment of tenapanor’s benefits and risks; and a proposal of how to label tenapanor for prescribers. There can be no assurances that the Formal Dispute Resolution (“FDR”) process will result in approval of our NDA, or in a clear path to resubmission of our NDA that is achievable in terms of clinical endpoints, time and cost. RDX013 Program: Small Molecule for Treating Hyperkalemia We are also advancing a small molecule potassium secretagogue program, RDX013, for the potential treatment of hyperkalemia. Hyperkalemia is a common problem in patients with heart and kidney disease, particularly in patients taking customary blood pressure medications known as renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (“RAAS”) inhibitors. RDX013 is a novel mechanism agent designed to target the underlying biological mechanisms of potassium secretion to lower elevated potassium. While currently available therapies are all ion exchange agents, RDX013 is a first in class secretagogue with demonstrated proof of concept in a Phase 2 dose ranging study evaluating the safety and pharmacodynamics of RDX013 in adult patients with hyperkalemia. The next steps for RDX013 will be determined based on final analyses of the Phase 2 results, continued formulation development, and sufficient financial resources. 4 Table of Contents RDX020 Program: Small molecule for Treating Metabolic Acidosis We have an ongoing discovery program targeting the inhibition of bicarbonate exchange inhibitor for the treatment of metabolic acidosis, a highly prevalent comorbidity in CKD patients that is strongly correlated with disease progression and adverse outcomes. We have identified lead compounds that are potent, selective and proprietary inhibitors of bicarbonate secretion. Our research organization was eliminated as part of our October 2021 restructuring, and therefore, we currently expect to continue to advance this discovery program utilizing third-party resources managed by internal non-clinical expertise. Our Commercial Strategy We have developed a portfolio of novel products to address unmet medical needs across gastrointestinal and cardiorenal therapeutic areas and intend to commercialize our products in the United States. We have established a high-quality commercial organization highly experienced in bringing novel products to our customers, including patients, payors and healthcare providers. Our commercial capabilities, including marketing, access, patient services and sales are designed to support our commercialization of IBSRELA, and will enable the commercialization of XPHOZAH, if approved. We have executed ex-U.S. collaborations with established industry leaders to efficiently bring XPHOZAH for hyperphosphatemia and IBSRELA for IBS-C to adult patients in specific territories outside of the Unites States. We continue to evaluate our strategy for the commercialization of IBSRELA and XPHOZAH in other ex-U.S. territories. Collaboration Partners We have exclusive rights to tenapanor in the U.S. and we have established agreements with Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd. ("KKC”) in Japan, Fosun Pharma in China and Knight in Canada for the development and commercialization of tenapanor for certain indications in their respective territories. Knight has exclusive rights for the development, commercialization and distribution of tenapanor in Canada for hyperphosphatemia and IBS-C. In March 2021, Knight announced the commercial availability of IBSRELA in Canada, following its approval by Health Canada in April 2020. Under the terms of the agreement with Knight, we received a $2.3 million nonrefundable, one-time upfront payment in March 2018 and are eligible to receive additional development and commercialization milestone payments worth up to $17.4 million. We are also eligible to receive royalties throughout the term of the agreement, and a transfer price for manufacturing services. KKC has exclusive rights for the development, commercialization and distribution of tenapanor in Japan for cardiorenal indications. In April 2021, we announced that KKC had commenced four phase 3 clinical trials in Japan evaluating tenapanor for hyperphosphatemia. The phase 3 clinical trials consist of a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group comparative study; a phosphate binder-combination parallel-group comparative study; an open-label, single-arm study evaluating adult hyperphosphatemia patients on peritoneal dialysis; and a long-term study evaluating serum phosphorus in adult patients who switch from one or more phosphate binders to tenapanor. KKC has publicly announced its plans to file a marketing authorization application with the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (“PMDA”) in the second half of 2022. Under the terms of the agreement with KKC, we received a $30.0 million upfront payment from KKC, and we may be entitled to receive up to $55.0 million in total development milestones, of which $10.0 million has been received and recognized as revenue as of December 31, 2021, and approximately ¥8.5 billion for commercialization milestones, or approximately $73.9 million at the currency exchange rate on December 31, 2021, as well as high-teen royalties on net sales throughout the term of the agreement. Fosun Pharma has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization for the development, commercialization and distribution of tenapanor in China for both hyperphosphatemia and IBS-C. Under the terms of the Fosun Agreement, we received $12.0 million in upfront license, and we may be entitled to additional development and commercialization milestones of up to $110.0 million, as well as reimbursement of cost plus a reasonable overhead for the supply of product and tiered royalties on net sales ranging from the mid-teens to 20%. Corporate Restructurings On July 29, 2021, our Board of Directors approved, and on August 2, 2021, we began implementing a restructuring plan to better align our workforce and anticipated commercial and development spend with our capital resources and the needs of our business following the receipt of the CRL for tenapanor for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis. Under the restructuring plan, we reduced our workforce by 83 employees (approximately 33%). Impacted employees 5 Table of Contents received cash payments equal to their base pay for a notice period of sixty (60) days and Company funded COBRA premiums through such notice period. Following the conclusion of our End of Review Meeting with the FDA, in October 2021, we began to implement an additional restructuring plan to further reduce operating costs and better align our workforce with the needs of our business. Under the restructuring plan, we planned to reduce our workforce by approximately 100 of our remaining employees (approximately 60%). The impacted employees received notice that their positions would be eliminated on December 15, 2021. On November 30, 2021, we announced plans to launch IBSRELA, our approved treatment for IBS-C in adults. In connection with the planned launch of IBSRELA, which we currently expect to occur in April 2022, we retained 28 of the employees whose positions were originally planned to be eliminated as part of the restructuring plan, thereby reducing the number of employees impacted by the restructuring plan to 72. The restructuring plan, which resulted in the elimination of our research organization was substantially completed in December 2021. Employees who were impacted by the restructurings were eligible to receive severance benefits and Company funded COBRA premiums, contingent upon an impacted employee’s execution (and non-revocation, where applicable) of a separation agreement, which included a general release of claims against us. In connection with the restructurings, we have incurred restructuring charges of $6.2 million, which were recorded during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021, related to one-time employee termination benefits, including severance payments and other employee-related costs. Of these charges, $2.7 million was recorded in research and development expenses, and $3.5 million was recorded in general and administrative expense in the accompanying statements of operations and comprehensive loss. Most of the cash payments related to the reduction in workforce were disbursed during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021. We have reported the remaining estimated liability of $0.5 million as accrued compensation and benefits in our Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2021. CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT In July 2020, we filed a Form S-3 registration statement, which became effective in August 2020, containing (i) a base prospectus for the offering, issuance and sale by us of up to a maximum aggregate offering price of $250.0 million of our common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants and/or units, from time to time in one or more offerings; and (ii) a prospectus supplement for the offering, issuance and sale by us of up to a maximum aggregate offering price of $100.0 million of our common stock that may be issued and sold, from time to time, under an Open Market Sales Agreement with Jefferies LLC, as sales agent, deemed to be “at-the-market offerings” (the "2020 Open Market Sales Agreement"). Pursuant to the 2020 Open Market Sales Agreement, Jefferies, as sales agent, received a commission of up to 3.0% of the gross sales price for shares of common stock sold under the 2020 Open Market Sales Agreement. We sold a cumulative total of 23.3 million shares and received gross proceeds of $100.0 million at a weighted average sales price of approximately $4.30 per share under the 2020 Open Market Sales Agreement. In August 2021, we filed an additional prospectus supplement under the Registration Statement for the offering, issuance and sale by us of up to a maximum aggregate offering price of $150.0 million of our common stock that may be issued and sold, from time to time, under an additional sales agreement we entered into with Jefferies (the "2021 Open Market Sales Agreement"), pursuant to which we may, from time to time, sell up to $150.0 million in shares of our common stock through Jefferies. We are not required to sell shares under the 2021 Open Market Sales Agreement. Pursuant to the 2021 Open Market Sales Agreement, Jefferies, as our sales agent, receives a commission of up to 3.0% of the gross sales price for shares of common stock sold under the 2021 Open Market Sales Agreement. As of December 31, 2021, we have sold 15.7 million shares and received gross proceeds of $25.0 million at a weighted average sales price of approximately $1.60 per share under the 2021 Open Market Sales Agreement. In December 2019, we completed an underwritten public offering of 23.0 million shares of common stock, resulting in the receipt of aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $143.8 million, less underwriting discounts, commissions and offering expenses totaling approximately $8.9 million, which resulted in net proceeds of approximately $134.9 million. In November 2019, we enhanced our strategic partnership with KKC by entering into a Stock Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which we sold to KKC an aggregate of 2.9 million shares of our common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $20.0 million. As of December 31, 2021, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments totaling $116.7 million. 6 Table of Contents INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our drug candidates, manufacturing and process discoveries, and other know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our intellectual property by, among other methods, filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology and inventions that are important to the development and operation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets and careful monitoring of our proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. The patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies like us are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by enforceable patents. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of our issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology or therapeutics to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) to determine priority of invention, which would result in substantial costs to us even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the U.S., a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. In addition, in the United States, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of a U.S. patent as partial compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process occurring while the patent is in force. A 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 each regulatory review period may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions are available in the European Union and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaboration partners, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning the business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during the normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. Tenapanor Patents Our tenapanor patent portfolio is wholly owned by us. This portfolio includes five issued U.S. patents, three issued Israeli patents, two issued patents in each of European Patent Organization, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Mexico and one issued patent in each of the following territories: Australia, Brazil, India, and China. These issued patents cover the composition and certain methods of using tenapanor and are predicted, without extension or adjustment, to expire in December 2029. The portfolio further includes patents covering the use of tenapanor for the control of serum phosphorus that have been issued in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China, Australia, Gulf Co-op countries, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia and Taiwan and is pending in other countries. These patents are predicted, without extension or adjustment, to expire in April 2034. 7 Table of Contents Additional U.S. and international patent applications are pending covering additional methods of treatment with tenapanor, and composition of matter and methods of using compounds that we believe may be follow on compounds to tenapanor. Other Program Patents We have patent applications pending in the U.S. and internationally that cover the compositions and methods of using compounds in our RDX013 program. MANUFACTURING To date, we have relied upon third-party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) to manufacture both the active pharmaceutical ingredient and final drug product dosage forms of our potential drug candidates used as clinical trial material. We expect that we will continue to rely upon CMOs for the manufacture of commercial product for IBSRELA, our clinical trial materials and for our commercial product requirements for XPHOZAH, when and if regulatory approval is received. Our license agreements with Knight, and Fosun Pharma require us to supply final drug product dosage forms of tenapanor for their use in the development and commercialization of tenapanor in each of their respective territories. We are further obligated to supply active pharmaceutical ingredient to KKC to support their development and commercialization of tenapanor in Japan. We expect that we will use CMOs to satisfy our supply obligations to our collaboration partners. GOVERNMENT REGULATION The FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements upon companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and export and import of our product candidates. In the United States, the FDA regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FFDCA”) and the FDA’s implementing regulations. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements at any time during the drug development process, the approval process or after approval, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Any FDA enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. FDA approval is required before any new unapproved drug or dosage form, including a new use of a previously approved drug, can be marketed in the United States. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves: • completion of extensive preclinical laboratory tests, preclinical animal studies and formulation studies, some performed in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) regulations; • submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application which must become effective before human clinical trials in the United States may begin; • approval by an independent institutional review board, (“IRB”) or ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with Good Clinical Practice ("GCP") regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug candidate for each proposed indication; • submission to the FDA of a new drug application (“NDA”); • satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) regulations; • satisfactory completion of a potential review by an FDA advisory committee, if applicable; and • FDA review and approval of the NDA prior to any commercial marketing, sale or commercial shipment of the drug. 8 Table of Contents The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, stability and toxicity, as well as animal studies to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The results of preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and a proposed clinical trial protocol and other information, are submitted as part of an IND to the FDA. Additional preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day period, raises concerns or questions relating to the IND and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be used. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An independent IRB or ethics committee for each medical center proposing to conduct a clinical trial must also review and approve a plan for any clinical trial before it can begin at that center and the IRB must monitor the clinical trial until it is completed. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP requirements, including the requirements for informed consent. All clinical research performed in the United States in support of an NDA must be submitted in advance by the FDA under the IND regulations and procedures described above. However, a sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA so long as the clinical trial is conducted in compliance with GCP and if the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection, if necessary. GCP includes review and approval by an independent ethics committee, such as an IRB, and obtaining and documenting the freely given informed consent of each subject before study initiation. If the applicant seeks approval of an NDA solely on the basis of foreign data, the FDA will only accept such data if they are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice, the studies have been performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence, and the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or through other appropriate means. Clinical Trials The clinical investigation of a new drug is typically conducted in three or four phases, which may overlap or be combined, and generally proceed as follows. • Phase 1 : Clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population of subjects to test the drug candidate for safety, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion in healthy humans or, on occasion, in patients with severe problems or life-threatening diseases to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. • Phase 2 : Clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to evaluate dosage tolerance and appropriate dosage, identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, and evaluate preliminarily the efficacy of the drug for specific targeted indications in patients with the disease or condition under study. • Phase 3 : Clinical trials are typically conducted when Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are commonly referred to as “pivotal” studies, which typically denotes a study which presents the data that the FDA or other relevant regulatory agency will use to determine whether or not to approve a drug. Phase 3 clinical trials are generally undertaken with large numbers of patients, such as groups of several hundred to several thousand, to further evaluate dosage, to provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically-dispersed clinical trial sites. • Phase 4 : In some cases, the FDA may condition approval of an NDA for a product candidate on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials after NDA approval. In other cases, a sponsor may voluntarily conduct 9 Table of Contents additional clinical trials post approval to gain more information about the drug. Such post approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional nonclinical studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug in commercial quantities in accordance with GMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. 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 shelf life. The FDA, the IRB or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate. New Drug Applications The results of preclinical studies and of the clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including extensive manufacturing information and information on the composition of the drug, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug for one or more specified indications. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a drug is safe and effective for its intended use. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA has a goal of responding to standard review NDAs for new molecular entities within ten months after the 60-day filing review period, or six months after the 60-day filing review period for priority review NDAs and for non-new molecular entities, within ten months of receipt of standard review NDAs and six month of receipt for priority review NDAs, but this timeframe is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving an application, the FDA may inspect the facility or the facilities at which the finished drug product, and sometimes the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) is manufactured, and will not approve the drug unless cGMP compliance is satisfactory. The FDA may also inspect the sites at which the clinical trials were conducted to assess their compliance and will not approve the drug unless compliance with GCP requirements is satisfactory. After the FDA evaluates the NDA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the drug product and/or its API will be produced, if deemed necessary, 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 additional information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. The FDA could also approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) if it is determined that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the drug’s benefits outweigh its risks and a REMS to mitigate risks, which could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct one or more post-market studies or clinical trials. Such post-market testing may include Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. The FDA has the authority to prevent or limit further marketing of a drug based on the results of these post-marketing programs. Once the FDA approves an NDA, or supplement thereto, the FDA may withdraw the approval if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems are identified after the drug reaches the market. Drugs may be marketed only for the FDA approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing 10 Table of Contents processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials. The testing and approval processes require substantial time, effort and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all. Even if we believe a clinical trial has demonstrated safety and efficacy of one of our drug candidates for the proposed indication, the results may not be satisfactory to the FDA. Nonclinical and clinical data may be interpreted by the FDA in different ways, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in our efforts to secure necessary governmental approvals which could delay or preclude us from marketing drugs. The FDA may limit the indications for use or place other conditions on any approvals that could restrict the commercial application of the drugs. After approval, certain changes to the approved drug, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, or additional labeling claims are subject to further FDA review and approval. Depending on the nature of the change proposed, an NDA supplement must be filed and approved before the change may be implemented. Other Regulatory Requirements Any drugs manufactured or distributed by us or our collaboration partners pursuant to FDA approvals would be subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including recordkeeping requirements and reporting of adverse experiences associated with the drug. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Failure to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning or untitled letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action or possible civil penalties. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future third-party manufacturers or suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP regulations and other ongoing FDA regulatory requirements. If we or our present or future third-party manufacturers or suppliers are not able to comply with these requirements, the FDA may, among other things, halt our clinical trials, require us to recall a drug from distribution or withdraw approval of the NDA for that drug. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are in the final label or consistent with the final label. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning or untitled letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use. Hatch-Waxman Act Under the Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, or Hatch-Waxman Act, Section 505 of the FFDCA describes three types of marketing applications that may be submitted to the FDA to request marketing authorization for a new drug. A Section 505(b)(1) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. This regulatory pathway enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and efficacy for an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. Section 505(j) establishes an abbreviated approval process for a generic version of approved drug products through the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”). An ANDA provides for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, performance characteristics and intended use, among other things, to a previously approved product. ANDAs are termed “abbreviated” because they are generally not required to include nonclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data to establish safety and efficacy. Instead, generic applicants must scientifically demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent to, or performs in the same manner as, the innovator drug through in vitro, in vivo, or other testing. The generic version must deliver the same amount of active ingredients into a subject’s bloodstream in the same amount of time as the innovator drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug. In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the 11 Table of Contents applicant’s drug or a method of using the drug. 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 505(b)(2) NDA. Upon submission of an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA, an applicant must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except where the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent through the last type of certification, also known as a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all of the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA holder and patent owners once the 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. If the Paragraph IV certification is challenged by an NDA holder or the patent owner(s), the FDA may not approve that application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the notice of the Paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in the applicant’s favor or settled, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. In instances where an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant files a Paragraph IV certification, the NDA holder or patent owner(s) regularly take action to trigger the 30-month stay, recognizing that the related patent litigation may take many months or years to resolve. 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 Hatch-Waxman Act establishes periods of regulatory exclusivity for certain approved drug products, during which the FDA cannot approve (or in some cases accept) an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application that relies on the branded reference drug. For example, the holder of an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, may obtain five years of exclusivity upon approval of a new drug containing a new chemical entity (“NCE”) that has not been previously approved by the FDA. A drug is a new chemical entity 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 therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a Paragraph IV certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The Hatch-Waxman Act also provides three years of marketing exclusivity to the holder of an NDA (including a 505(b)(2) NDA) for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical studies (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted/sponsored by the applicant. This three-year exclusivity period protects against FDA approval of ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDAs for the specific condition of the new drug’s approval. As a general matter, the three-year exclusivity does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full 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 efficacy. Fraud and Abuse Laws In the U.S. the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale and promotion of drug products and medical devices are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice, state Attorneys General, and other state and local government agencies. These laws include but are not limited to, the Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and other state and federal laws and regulations. The Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf) to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order, or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal 12 Table of Contents healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. The federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, manufacturers 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 or promoting a product off-label. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state, and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products, are subject to scrutiny under this law. Moreover, the government may assert 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 False Claims Act. Penalties for a False Claims Act violation include 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 healthcare programs. As well, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. If the government were to allege that we were, or convict us of, violating these false claims laws, we could be subject to a substantial fine and may suffer a decline in our stock price. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions under the federal False Claims Act. In addition to the laws described above, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain drug manufacturers to report payments and other transfer of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) certain non-physician practitioners (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants and certified nurse midwives) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit required information may result in significant civil monetary penalties, and additional penalties for knowing failures, for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual submission. Manufacturers must submit reports by the 90th day of each subsequent calendar year. Many states have also adopted laws similar to the federal laws discussed above. Some of these state prohibitions apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any insurer, not just federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. There has also been a recent trend of increased regulation of payments made to physicians and other healthcare providers. Certain states mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturers’ marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of pricing and marketing information as well as gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians. Many of these laws contain ambiguities as to what is required to comply with such laws, which may affect our sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. In addition, given the lack of clarity with respect to these laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state and perhaps federal, authorities. Violations of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply may result in penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, reporting obligations and integrity oversight, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment. Third-Party Coverage and Reimbursement Sales of pharmaceutical products depend in significant part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, such as state and federal governments, including Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial managed care providers. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for our product candidates, if approved, will be made on a payor by payor basis. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover our product candidates could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our future sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate 13 Table of Contents reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. There is increased uncertainty related to insurance coverage and reimbursement for certain drugs, like XPHOZAH, which, if approved, will be marketed for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis. In January 2011, CMS implemented a new prospective payment system for dialysis treatment. Under the ESRD prospective payment system, CMS generally makes a single bundled payment to the dialysis facility for each dialysis treatment that covers all items and services routinely required for dialysis treatments furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in Medicare-certified ESRD facilities or at their home, including the cost of certain routine drugs. The inclusion of oral medications without injectable or intravenous equivalents in the bundled payment was initially delayed until January 1, 2014 and through several subsequent legislative actions was delayed until January 1, 2025. As a result, absent further legislation or regulation on this matter, beginning in 2025, oral ESRD-related drugs without injectable or intravenous equivalents may be included in the ESRD bundle and separate Medicare payment for these drugs will no longer be available, as is the case today under Medicare Part D. While it is too early to project the full impact that bundling may have on XPHOZAH and our business should XPHOZAH be brought into the bundle in 2025, or at any time, we may be unable to sell XPHOZAH, if approved, to dialysis providers on a profitable basis if third-party payors reduce their current levels of payment, or if our costs of production are higher than levels necessary for an appropriate gross margin after payment of all discounts, rebates and chargebacks. Healthcare Reform In March 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a healthcare reform measure (the “ACA”). The ACA was signed into law and substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contained a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes and fraud and abuse measures, which have impacted existing government healthcare programs and have resulted in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program. Additionally, the ACA: • increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand-name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1% of the average manufacturer price; • required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; • expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability; • expanded access to commercial health insurance coverage through new state-based health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges; • required manufacturers to participate in a coverage gap discount program, under which they must now agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and • imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021. The executive order 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 ACA. 14 Table of Contents In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, in August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 and a 1% reduction from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. More recently, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, beginning January 1, 2024. Recently, there has also been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills 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 drug products. By way of example, the Build Back Better Act, if enacted, would introduce substantial drug pricing reforms, including the establishment of a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require manufacturers to charge a negotiated “maximum fair price” for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, and the establishment of rebate payment requirements on manufacturers of certain drugs payable under Medicare Parts B and D. If the Build Back Better Act is not enacted, similar or other drug pricing proposals could appear in future legislation. Additionally, individual states have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, and to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. These new laws and the regulations and policies implementing them, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our products. Government Price Reporting Medicaid is a joint federal and state program for low-income and disabled beneficiaries. Medicare is a federal program covering individuals age 65 and over as well as those with certain disabilities. As a condition of having federal funds being made available for our covered drugs under Medicaid, we intend to enroll in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”), which would require us to pay a rebate to state Medicaid programs for each unit of our covered drugs dispensed to a Medicaid beneficiary and paid for by a state Medicaid program. Medicaid drug rebates are based on pricing data that we must report on a monthly and quarterly basis to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the federal agency that administers the MDRP and Medicare programs. For the MDRP, these data include the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) and the best price (“BP”) for each drug. If we become aware that our MDRP price reporting submission for a prior period was incorrect or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we must resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. Manufacturers who fail to provide information timely or are found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government may be subject to civil monetary penalties and other sanctions, including termination from the MDRP. Federal law requires that a manufacturer that participates in the MDRP also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program (the “340B program”) in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. We intend to participate in the 340B program, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), and requires us to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the our covered outpatient drugs used in an outpatient setting. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the AMP and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the MDRP. In general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. We must report 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis, and HRSA publishes them to 340B covered entities. HRSA has finalized regulations regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities for 340B-eligible drugs. HRSA has also finalized an administrative dispute resolution process through which 340B covered entities may pursue claims against participating manufacturers for overcharges, and through which manufacturers may pursue claims against 340B covered entities for engaging in unlawful diversion or duplicate discounting of 340B drugs. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program, such as adding further covered entities or requiring participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting. 15 Table of Contents In order to be eligible to have drug products paid for with federal funds under Medicaid and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, manufacturers must also participate in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program. Under the VA/FSS program, manufacturers must report the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (“Non-FAMP”) for their covered drugs to the VA and charge certain federal agencies no more than the Federal Ceiling Price, which is calculated based on Non-FAMP using a statutory formula. These four agencies are the VA, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service). Manufacturers must also pay rebates on products purchased by military personnel and dependents through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program. Manufacturers who fail to provide timely information or are found to have knowingly submitted false information may be subject to civil monetary penalties. Individual states continue to consider and have enacted legislation to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs and combination products. A number of states have either implemented or are considering implementation of drug price transparency legislation. Requirements under such laws include advance notice of planned price increases, reporting price increase amounts and factors considered in taking such increases, wholesale acquisition cost information disclosure to prescribers, purchasers, and state agencies, and new product notice and reporting. Such legislation could limit the price or payment for certain drugs, and a number of states are authorized to impose civil monetary penalties or pursue other enforcement mechanisms against manufacturers who fail to comply with drug price transparency requirements, including the untimely, inaccurate, or incomplete reporting of drug pricing information. Data Privacy and Security Laws Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively “HIPAA”), and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) and the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data 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. Further, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing. Other Regulations We are also subject to numerous federal, state and local laws relating to such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control, and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future. Impact of COVID-19 The global COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the operational decisions of companies worldwide. It also has created and may continue to create significant uncertainty in the global economy. We have undertaken measures to protect our employees, partners, collaborators, and vendors, some of which impact our normal operations. To date, we have been able to continue our operations with our workforce, most of whom are working remotely, and our pre-existing infrastructure that supports secure access to our internal systems. If, however, the COVID-19 pandemic has a substantial impact on the productivity of our employees, our ability to successfully prepare for and execute the commercial launch of IBSRELA, including our ability to hire and successfully integrate into the company the new personnel required to prepare for such launch, or our ability to pursue our appeal of the ADL issued by OHCEN following the issuance of a CRL for our NDA for tenapanor for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis, the results of our operations and overall financial performance may be adversely impacted. The extent of the impact from the COVID-19 pandemic on our business will depend largely on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted. For a discussion of risks of COVID-19 relating to our business, see “Item 1A. - Risk Factors- Risks Related to Our Business- The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, or any other outbreak of epidemic diseases, or the perception of their effects, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, 16 Table of Contents results of operations or cash flows.” As of the date of issuance of this financial report, we are not aware of any specific event or circumstance that would require updates to our estimates and judgments or revisions to the carrying value of our assets or liabilities. These estimates may change as new events occur and additional information is obtained. Human Capital The future success of our company depends on our ability to attract, retain, and further develop top talent. We plan to launch IBSRELA in April 2022 and, as a result, we are building an experienced commercial team and expanding our internal resources to support a commercial organization. During this ongoing transition and expansion of our workforce, we remain steadfastly committed to our core values, including our goal to develop and maintain an inclusive, diverse, and safe workplace with opportunities for our employees to grow and develop in their careers, supported by strong compensation and benefits. At December 31, 2021, we had approximately 86 full-time employees, 55 of whom were engaged directly in development and manufacturing, and 31 in marketing, sales and administrative activities. During 2021 our employee base decreased by approximately 43, or 33%, primarily as a result of our restructurings in August 2021 and October 2021. Inclusion and Diversity Our culture is supported by an unwavering commitment to inclusion and diversity. As of December 31, 2021, approximately 63% of our workforce was female; 43% of our executive leadership team was female and 56% of our employees in managerial roles were female. As of December 31, 2021, minorities represented approximately 39% of our workforce, of which 41% of our employees in managerial roles were minorities. We strive to foster a culture where mutual respect, inclusive behavior, and dignity are core to our individual expectations. We believe that our success will be significantly impacted by our ability to create and maintain a safe inclusive environment where everyone is empowered to do their best work—regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, or disability. We are united by our desire to serve our patients, and we are proud financial sponsors of the California Life Sciences Association Racial and Social Equity Initiative, a first step in a unified effort for the life sciences industry in California to do more for the under-served and under-represented, focusing on the most critical need to address the inequality for Black, Hispanic, Native American and Pacific Islander populations in California. Core Values Fostering and maintaining a strong, healthy culture is a key strategic focus. Our core values reflect who we are and the way our employees interact with one another, our partners and our stockholders. We are dedicated to our core values, recognizing that this dedication will foster an environment where we will be able to realize our vision of advancing patient care. We are Passionate, aware that with integrity and determination, we make a difference for patients. We are Fearless, aware that by challenging convention, we truly innovate. We are Dedicated, aware that working tirelessly together, we are greater than the sum of our parts. We are Inclusive, aware that with respect, grace and humor, we are family. We encourage our employees to live out our core values and to discuss our core values with potential candidates looking to join our team. We believe that this is an important step in helping our culture stay strong and unique. Health, Safety, and Wellness The health, safety, and wellness of our employees is a priority in which we have always invested, and will continue to do so. These investments and the prioritization of employee health, safety, and wellness took on particular significance in light of COVID-19. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented significant changes that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, as well as the communities in which we operate, in compliance with government regulations. This included having the vast majority of our employees work from home. We have reopened our facilities and are currently inviting our employees to return to our facilities in the manner in which they are comfortable. We will continue to monitor infection rates and severity of disease in those communities in which are facilities are located and will continue to adopt and align our policies to focus on the health, safety and wellness of our employees, and the needs of our business. Compensation and Benefits We recognize that we operate within an industry where there is significant competition for top talent, and we endeavor to provide not only a strong healthy culture, but also important compensation and benefits programs to help meet the needs of our employees. In addition to base compensation, these programs, include annual bonuses, stock awards, an Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 401(k), healthcare and insurance benefits, health savings (funded by the Company) and flexible spending 17 Table of Contents accounts, family leave, family care resources, and flexible work schedules, among many others. As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented payments to assist employees in paying for expenses incurred in working from home. Ensuring fair and equitable pay is integral to our commitment to our employees. Our executive team and Board of Directors strongly support this commitment. We conduct pay equity reviews annually to help us understand whether our compensation structure is appropriate and to identify what improvements can be made. Corporate Information We were incorporated in Delaware on October 17, 2007, under the name Nteryx and changed our name to Ardelyx, Inc. in June 2008. We operate in one business segment, which is the development and planned commercialization of biopharmaceutical products. Our principal office is located at 400 Fifth Avenue, Suite 210, Waltham, Massachusetts 02415. Our telephone number is (510) 745-1700 and our website address is www.ardelyx.com. We file electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We make available on our website at www.ardelyx.com, free of charge, copies of these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that website is www.sec.gov.