ARDELYX, INC. 10-K

ITEM 1. BUSINESS 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. We developed a unique and innovative platform that enabled the discovery of new biological mechanisms and pathways to develop potent, and efficacious therapies that minimize the side effects and drug-drug interactions frequently encountered with traditional, systemically absorbed medicines. The first molecule we discovered and developed was tenapanor, a targeted, first-in-class, oral, small molecule therapy. Tenapanor, branded as IBSRELA ® , is approved in the U.S. for the treatment of adults with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (“IBS-C”). Tenapanor is in development for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (“CKD”) on dialysis under the brand name XPHOZAH ® . We also have a developmental stage asset, RDX013, for adult CKD and/or heart failure patients with hyperkalemia, or elevated serum potassium, and a discovery stage asset, RDX020, for adult CKD patients with metabolic acidosis, a serious electrolyte disorder. 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 realized our first product sales of IBSRELA (tenapanor) in March 2022. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $780.1 million. We expect to continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future as we invest in the commercialization of IBSRELA, seek to gain approval in the U.S. for XPHOZAH (tenapanor); prepare for and commercialize XPHOZAH in the U.S., if approved; and incur manufacturing and development cost for tenapanor. 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, funds from our loan agreements with our lenders, as well as from sales of IBSRELA. Our Commercial Product 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, U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved, sodium hydrogen exchange 3 ("NHE3") inhibitor for the treatment of IBS-C in adults. IBSRELA acts locally in the gut and is minimally absorbed. IBS-C is a gastrointestinal ("GI") disorder characterized by both abdominal pain and altered bowel movements, and is estimated to affect 12 million people in the U.S. IBS-C is associated with significantly impaired quality of life, reduced productivity, and substantial economic burden. We recognized our first sales of IBSRELA in the U.S. in March 2022. For our commercial launch of IBSRELA, we designed a market-responsive commercial strategy and built a commercial organization highly experienced in launching novel therapies into specialty areas. The dynamics of the IBS-C market reflected an established patient base, limited number of competitors all confined to a single mechanism of action, concentrated number of prescribers, and recognized unmet need. In addition, market research indicated a favorable response to the IBSRELA product profile as a novel mechanism therapy. These dynamics enabled a targeted promotional focus on patients currently being managed for IBS-C by the approximately 9,000 high-writing healthcare providers that account for 50% of IBS-C prescriptions. Central to the go to market strategy for IBSRELA 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. We expect competition for IBSRELA will come largely from the three prescription products indicated for IBS-C: Linzess (linaclotide), Amitiza (lubiprostone) and Trulance (plecanatide). Generic lubiprostone is also available in the U.S. Additionally, over-the-counter products, not indicated for IBS-C, are commonly used to treat the constipation component of IBS-C, alone and in combination with the IBS-C-indicated prescription 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. 3 Table of Contents Our Product Pipeline Development Candidate XPHOZAH: A Potential New Approach for the Control of Serum Phosphorus in Adult Patients with CKD on Dialysis XPHOZAH (tenapanor) is a first-in-class medicine being developed for the control of serum phosphorus, or hyperphosphatemia, 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. It is estimated that there are more than 550,000 adult patients with CKD on dialysis in the U.S., and approximately 80% of those patients are being treated with phosphate lowering therapies. Seventy-seven percent of patients treated with phosphate binders to treat hyperphosphatemia were unable to consistently maintain phosphorous levels <=5.5 mg/dL over a six-month period. If approved, XPHOZAH would be the first therapy for phosphate management that blocks phosphorus absorption at the primary site. In June 2020, we submitted a new drug application (“NDA”) to the FDA for XPHOZAH. The NDA was supported by three Phase 3 trials involving more than 1,200 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 (“Division") regarding our NDA for XPHOZAH. In December 2021, we submitted a Formal Dispute Resolution Request ("FDRR") to the Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology and Nephrology ("OCHEN"). At the request of the FDA's Office of New Drugs ("OND"), as part of our second level of appeal of the CRL, a Cardiovascular and Renal Drug Advisory Committee meeting on was held on November 16, 2022 with the committee voting that the benefits of XPHOZAH outweigh its risks nine to four as a monotherapy and ten to two, with one abstention, in combination with phosphate binder therapy. In December 2022, the OND granted our appeal of the CRL for the NDA for XPHOZAH and directed the Division to work with us to develop an appropriate label for the commercialization of XPHOZAH. We believe that a label could reflect an indication for patients whose hyperphosphatemia is insufficiently managed on binder therapy. On February 13, 2023, we participated in a Type A meeting with the Division where we discussed the resubmission of the NDA, and the information to be contained in the resubmitted NDA. We currently expect to resubmit the NDA for XPHOZAH early in the second quarter of 2023. Within thirty (30) days of resubmitting the NDA, we expect to receive notification from the Division as to the classification of the resubmission (Class 1 or Class 2) at which point the expected timing for review will also be known (2-months for a Class 1 and 6-months for a Class 2) as well as a goal review date. We currently believe that the FDA will act upon the XPHOZAH NDA in the second half of 2023, and, if approved, we expect to launch XPHOZAH in the second half of 2023. We have established commercial agreements with Kyowa Kirin, Co. Ltd. ("KKC") in Japan, Fosun Pharma in China and Knight in Canada for tenapanor for hyperphosphatemia. In October 2022, KKC submitted an NDA to the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare for tenapanor for the improvement of hyperphosphatemia in adult patients with CKD on dialysis. Discovery and Developmental Assets We have a small molecule potassium secretagogue program, RDX013, for the potential treatment of hyperkalemia, or elevated serum potassium. 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. We have completed a Phase 2 dose ranging clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of RDX013 for the treatment of hyperkalemia in CKD patients who are not on dialysis. While the results of the study demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile for RDX013 and supported proof of concept in its ability to lower serum potassium levels, with statistically significant reductions compared to placebo after eight days of treatment, the study did not meet its primary endpoint of significantly reducing serum potassium levels compared to placebo after four weeks of treatment. We have a 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. We do not currently expect to meaningfully advance either of these two assets until such time as we have determined our available resources can support additional activities after prioritization of the commercialization of IBSRELA and, if approved, XPHOZAH. 4 Table of Contents 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 U.S. 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 the commercialization of XPHOZAH, if approved. We have executed ex-U.S. collaborations with established industry leaders to efficiently bring XPHOZAH and IBSRELA to patients in specific territories outside of the U.S. 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 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. In March 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Knight (“Knight Agreement”) 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 Knight Agreement, Knight paid us a $2.3 million non-refundable, one-time payment in March 2018. We may also be eligible to receive approximately CAD 22.2 million for development and commercialization milestones, or approximately $16.3 million at the currency exchange rate on December 31, 2022, of which $0.7 million has been received and recognized as revenue as of December 31, 2022. We are also eligible to receive royalties throughout the term of the agreement, and a transfer price for manufacturing services. The variable consideration related to the remaining development milestone payments has not been included in the transaction price as they were fully constrained at December 31, 2022. In November 2017, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with KKC (“2017 KKC Agreement”) for the development, commercialization and distribution of tenapanor in Japan for cardiorenal indications. Under the terms of the 2017 KKC Agreement, 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 and regulatory milestones, of which $20.0 million has been received and recognized as revenue as of December 31, 2022. We may also be eligible to receive approximately ¥8.5 billion for commercialization milestones, or approximately $64.6 million at the currency exchange rate on December 31, 2022, as well as reimbursement of costs plus a reasonable overhead for the supply of product and royalties on net sales throughout the term of the agreement. As discussed in Note 8. Deferred Royalty Obligation Related to the Sale of Future Royalties , the future royalties and commercial milestone payments we may receive under the 2017 KKC Agreement will be remitted to HealthCare Royalty Partners IV, L.P. pursuant to a Royalty and Sales Milestone Interest Acquisition Agreement. On April 11, 2022, we entered into a second amendment to the 2017 KKC Agreement ("2022 Amendment"). Under the terms of the 2022 Amendment, we and KKC agreed to a reduction in the royalty rate payable to us by KKC upon net sales of tenapanor in Japan. The royalty rate was reduced from the high teens to low double digits for a two-year period of time following the first commercial sale in Japan, and then to mid-single digits for the remainder of the royalty term. As discussed in Note 8. Deferred Royalty Obligation Related to the Sale of Future Royalties , the future royalties we may receive under the 2017 KKC Agreement will be remitted to HealthCare Royalty Partners IV, L.P. pursuant to a Royalty and Sales Milestone Interest Acquisition Agreement. As consideration for the reduction in the royalty rate, KKC agreed to pay us up to an additional $40.0 million payable in two tranches, with the first payment received in the fourth quarter of 2022 following KKC’s October 2022 filing with the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of its application for marketing approval for tenapanor and the second payment due following KKC’s receipt of regulatory approval to market tenapanor for hyperphosphatemia in Japan. In October 2022, we announced that KKC submitted a NDA to the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare for tenapanor for the improvement of hyperphosphatemia in adult patients with CKD on dialysis, which resulted in payment to us from KKC for an aggregate of $35.0 million for milestone payments and payments under the 2022 Amendment. 5 Table of Contents In December 2017, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Fosun Pharma (“Fosun Agreement”) for the development and commercialization of tenapanor in China for both hyperphosphatemia and IBS-C. Under the terms of the Fosun Agreement, Fosun paid us a $12.0 million upfront license fee. We may be entitled to receive development and commercialization milestones of up to $110.0 million, of which $3.0 million has been received and recognized as revenue as of December 31, 2022, 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 We implemented restructuring plans in August 2021 and October 2021 following the receipt of a CRL from the FDA relating to our NDA for XPHOZAH and following the conclusion of an End of Review Type A meeting with the FDA, respectively. Both restructuring plans were substantially completed in December 2021 and most of the cash payments related to the reduction in workforce were disbursed prior to December 31, 2021. Impacted employees were eligible to receive severance benefits and additional Company funded COBRA premiums, contingent upon an impacted employee’s execution (and non-revocation) of a separation agreement, which included a general release of claims against us. In connection with restructuring, we 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. We did not incur any significant contract termination costs pursuant to restructuring. 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. We incurred no restructuring charges during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022. We reported remaining estimated liabilities for the restructuring costs of zero and $0.5 million as accrued compensation and benefits in our Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Corporate Financings In July 2020, we filed a Form S-3 registration statement, which became effective in August 2020 ("2020 Registration Statement"), 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” ("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 the full 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 2020 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 ("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, 2022, we have sold 79.8 million shares and received gross proceeds of $98.1 million at a weighted average sales price of approximately $1.23 per share under the 2021 Open Market Sales Agreement. During the period January 1, 2023 to January 12, 2023, we received additional gross proceeds of $20.0 million for the sale of an additional 7.7 million shares which were sold at a weighted average sales price of approximately $2.60 per share under the 2021 Open Market Sales Agreement. There have been no other sales under the 2021 Open Market Sales Agreement after December 31, 2022. 6 Table of Contents In January 2023, we filed a Form S-3 registration statement, which became effective in January 2023 ("2023 Registration Statement"), 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 $150.0 million of our common stock that may be issued and sold, from time to time, under a sales agreement with Jefferies LLC ("Jefferies"), deemed to be “at-the-market offerings” ("2023 Open Market Sales Agreement"). Pursuant to the 2023 Open Market Sales Agreement, Jefferies, as sales agent, may receive a commission of up to 3.0% of the gross sales price for shares of common stock sold under the 2023 Open Market Sales Agreement. There have been no sales of our common stock under the 2023 Open Market Sales Agreement. As of December 31, 2022, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments totaling $123.9 million. 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 U.S. 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 (“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 U.S., 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 U.S., 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. 7 Table of Contents Tenapanor Patents Our tenapanor patent portfolio is wholly owned by us. This portfolio includes five issued U.S. patents, three issued patents in each of Israel and Mexico, two issued patents in each of European Patent Organization, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong 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. However, the term of U.S. patent no. 8,541,448 was extended under the Hatch-Waxman Act to August 1, 2033. The portfolio further includes patents covering the use of tenapanor for controlling serum phosphorus that have been issued in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China, Australia, Gulf Co-op countries, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Macao, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and Taiwan and are pending in other countries. These patents are predicted, without extension or adjustment, to expire in April 2034. 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 U.S., the FDA regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“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 U.S. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the U.S. 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 U.S. may begin; • approval by an independent institutional review board, (“IRB”) or ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each trial may be initiated; 8 Table of Contents • 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 an 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. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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. 9 Table of Contents • 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 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. For non-new molecular entities, the FDA has a goal of responding within ten months of receipt of standard review NDAs and six months of receipt for priority review NDAs. These timeframes are 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. 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 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 10 Table of Contents further marketing of a drug based on the results of these post-market 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 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. 11 Table of Contents 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 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. 12 Table of Contents 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 healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending 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 federal 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 of its facts and circumstances. Additionally, 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 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. 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. The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, 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. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of whether the payor is public or private, 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 by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation. 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. 13 Table of Contents 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 U.S., 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 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 End Stage Renal Disease (“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. Healthcare Reform In March 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a healthcare reform measure (“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. 14 Table of Contents 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. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. 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, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2032, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 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. Most recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023), and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated. 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. 15 Table of Contents 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 have enrolled in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”), which requires 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 (“340B program”) in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. We 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 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 is 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 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 U.S., numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws 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. 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 16 Table of Contents 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. We have undertaken measures to protect our employees, partners, collaborators, and vendors, some of which impact our operations. To date, we have been able to continue our operations with our workforce, most of whom have the ability to work in company-provided offices or remotely, and our pre-existing infrastructure that supports secure access to our internal systems. For a discussion of risks of COVID-19 relating to our business, see “Part II: Other Information-Item 1A.- Risk Factors- Risks Related to Our Business- The ongoing effects of the 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, 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. In preparation of our launch of IBSRELA in March 2022, we built an experienced commercial team and expanded our internal resources to support a commercial organization. Throughout this transition and expansion of our workforce, we have remained 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, 2022, we had 133 full-time employees, 43 of whom were engaged directly in development and manufacturing, and 90 in marketing, sales and administrative activities. During 2022, our employee base increased by approximately 47, or 55%. Inclusion and Diversity Our culture is supported by an unwavering commitment to inclusion and diversity. As of December 31, 2022, approximately 56% of our workforce was female; 43% of our executive leadership team was female and 20% of our employees in managerial roles were female. As of December 31, 2022, minorities represented approximately 38% of our workforce, and 17% 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. 17 Table of Contents 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 employees have returned to our facilities in the manner in which they are comfortable. We 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 accounts, family leave, family care resources, and flexible work schedules, among many others. 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 founded in October 2007 as a Delaware corporation under the name Nteryx. We changed our name to Ardelyx, Inc. in June 2008. We operate in one business segment, which is the development and commercialization of biopharmaceutical products. Our principal executive offices are located at 400 Fifth Avenue, Suite 210, Waltham, Massachusetts 02415, and our telephone number is (510) 745-1700. 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.