BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. 10-K

bbio-20251231 Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31 , 2025 or o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File No. 001-38959 BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization 84-1850815 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 3160 Porter Drive , Suite 250 , Palo Alto , CA (Address of principal executive offices) 94304 (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: ( 650 ) 391-9740 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share BBIO The Nasdaq Global Select Market Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act: NONE Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well‑known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No o Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No x Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S‑T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes x No o Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer x Accelerated filer o Non-accelerated filer o Smaller reporting company o Emerging growth company o If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 726(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. x If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. o Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). o Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b‑2 of the Act). Yes o No x The aggregate market value of the voting and non‑voting common equity held by non‑affiliates of the registrant based upon the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2025 was approximately $ 7.3 billion. Shares of the registrant’s Common Stock held by each executive officer and director and by each other person who may be deemed an affiliate of the Registrant have been excluded from this computation. The determination of affiliate status for this purpose is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes. On February 12, 2026, there were 193,862,871 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock issued and outstanding. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Specified portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement to be issued in conjunction with the registrant’s 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which is expected to be filed not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report. Except as expressly incorporated by reference, the registrant’s Proxy Statement shall not be deemed to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. Table of Contents BRIDGEBIO PHARMA, INC. 2025 Form 10‑K Annual Report Table of Contents Page PART I Item 1. Business 7 Item 1A. Risk Factors 57 Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 121 Item 1C. Cybersecurity 121 Item 2. Properties 122 Item 3. Legal Proceedings 122 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 122 PART II Item 5. Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 123 Item 6. [Reserved] 124 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 125 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 147 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 148 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 212 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 212 Item 9B. Other Information 214 Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 215 PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 216 Item 11. Executive Compensation 216 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 216 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 216 Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 216 PART IV Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 217 Item 16. Form 10‑K Summary 223 Signatures 224 In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, unless otherwise stated or as the context requires, references to “BridgeBio,” “the Company,” “we,” “us,” “our” or similar references refer to BridgeBio Pharma, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries. BRIDGEBIO and ATTRUBY are our registered trademarks in the United States (“U.S.”). BRIDGEBIO, ATTRUBY and BEYONTTRA are our registered trademarks in the European Union (“EU”), the United Kingdom (“UK”) and Japan. All other brand names and service marks, trademarks and other trade names appearing in this report are the property of their respective owners. We use the brand name for our products when we refer to the product that has been approved and with respect to the indications on the approved label. Otherwise, including in discussions of our achondroplasia, autosomal dominant hypocalcemia type 1 (ADH1), and limb-girdle muscular dystrophy type 2I/R9 (LGMD2I/R9) development programs, we refer to our product candidates by their scientific (or generic) name or BridgeBio Pharma (“BBP”) developmental designation. When referring to our commercial product that has been approved in (i) the U.S. and (ii) the EU, Japan, and the UK, as applicable, we use both names Attruby TM and Beyonttra TM – e.g., “Our commercial organization focuses on supporting the appropriate use of Attruby and Beyonttra in the markets where this product has been approved.” 2 Table of Contents Special Note Regarding Forward‑Looking Statements This Annual Report on Form 10‑K contains forward‑looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such forward‑looking statements involve substantial risks, uncertainties and assumptions. All statements in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K, other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future operating expenses, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans, intentions, expectations, goals and objectives may be forward‑looking statements. The words “anticipates,” “approximately,” “believes,” “could,” “designed,” “estimates,” “expects,” “goal,” “intends,” “may,” “objective,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “projects,” “pursuing,” “seeks,” “should,” “will,” “would” and similar expressions (including the negatives thereof) are intended to identify forward‑looking statements, although not all forward‑looking statements contain these identifying words. The forward-looking statements in this report include, but are not limited to, statements about: • the commercial success of Attruby TM (acoramidis), including our expectations regarding the size and growth potential of the commercial markets for Attruby; • the success, cost and timing of our clinical development of our product candidates, including the progress of, and results from and data readouts for, our ongoing Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials of low-dose infigratinib for achondroplasia, our Phase 3 clinical trial of BBP-418 for LGMD2I, our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial of encaleret for ADH1, and our ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of BBP-812 for Canavan disease, and the clinical timeline for our new antibody deplete program for ATTR-CM, as well as the potential indications for each; • our ability to continue planned preclinical and clinical development of our respective development programs, and the timing, cost and success of any such continued preclinical and clinical development and planned regulatory submissions; • our ability to initiate, recruit and enroll patients in and conduct our clinical trials at the pace that we project; • the expected timing of our submissions, including New Drug Applications (“NDAs”) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), and similar submissions with foreign regulatory authorities, our Investigational New Drug applications (“INDs”), our potential receipt of U.S. approval and commencement of commercial launch for BBP-418, encaleret, and infigratinib, subject to such approval and our anticipated interaction with and feedback from the FDA and similar regulatory authorities; • our plans to implement certain development strategies, including our ability to attract and retain potential collaborators with development, regulatory and commercialization expertise; • our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of our product candidates in any of the indications for which we are developing or we plan to develop, and any related restrictions, limitations or warnings in the label of any of our product candidates, if approved; • our ability to successfully commercialize our current product candidates, if approved, and any other product candidates we may identify and pursue, if approved, including our ability to successfully build a specialty sales force and commercial infrastructure to market our current product candidates and any other product candidates we may identify and pursue; • our ability to compete with companies currently marketing approved treatments or engaged in the development of treatments that may become available for any of the indications that our product candidates are designed to target; • our reliance on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and to manufacture drug substance and drug product for our commercial product and certain of our product candidates for use in our clinical trials; • our ability to contract with and the performance of our and our collaborators’ third-party suppliers and manufacturers; • the pricing and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved; • the size and growth potential of the markets for our current product candidates or other product candidates we may identify and pursue, and our ability to serve and gain acceptance by those markets; • our ability to identify and advance through clinical development any additional product candidates; 3 Table of Contents • the impacts of public health crises or macroeconomic factors that could impact our business, such as the effects of the ongoing conflicts in the Ukraine or in Israel and the Gaza Strip on the global economy; supply chain and inflationary pressures, or significant political, trade or regulatory developments in the jurisdictions in which we may sell our products or conduct our operations; • our ability to retain and recruit key personnel; • the success of competing therapies that are or may become available; • our ability to obtain and maintain adequate intellectual property rights for our product candidates and our ability to operate our business without infringing on the intellectual property rights of others; • our expectations regarding government and third-party payor coverage and reimbursement; • our estimates of our expenses, ongoing losses, capital requirements and our use of cash resources, and our needs for or ability to pay for debt interests and obtain additional financing to complete the clinical trials of any of our product candidates; • the impact of laws and regulations in the United States and foreign countries; • our financial performance, including our anticipated funding to support the potential launch of three additional medicines globally; • adverse developments affecting the financial services industry, such as actual events or concerns involving liquidity, defaults, or non-performance by financial institutions or transactional counterparties; and • developments and projections relating to our competitors or our industry. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions, expectations or objectives disclosed in our forward‑looking statements and the assumptions underlying our forward‑looking statements may prove incorrect. Furthermore, if our forward‑looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. Therefore, you should not place undue reliance on our forward‑looking statements, and you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame, or at all. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions, expectations and objectives disclosed in the forward‑looking statements that we make. Important factors that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from our forward‑looking statements include, but are not limited to, those listed under “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Part II and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. Our forward‑looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K are based on current expectations as of the date hereof and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward‑looking statements on account of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. 4 Table of Contents RISK FACTOR SUMMARY Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the heading “Risk Factors” and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) before making investment decisions regarding our common stock. • Our business is substantially dependent on the commercial success of Attruby and Beyonttra. The continued commercial success of this product, along with our product candidates, if approved, will depend upon the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community. • If our sales and marketing capabilities for Attruby and Beyonttra, and our future product candidates, if approved, are not effective or we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into and maintain our agreements with third parties to sell and market Attruby and Beyonttra or any future product candidates approved for commercial sale, we may be unsuccessful in our commercial efforts. • Our profitability will depend significantly on our ability to sell enough product at competitive prices and on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement through governmental or private third-party payors. • Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to penetrate foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties. • If we fail to comply with healthcare laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial conditions could be adversely affected. • Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. • If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program or other governmental pricing programs, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. • Federal legislative and regulatory efforts to implement reference pricing or most-favored-nation pricing models could impact our product revenues and materially harm our business. • We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve commercial success or regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize any product candidates we may develop and ultimately harm our financial condition. • We may encounter substantial delays in clinical trials or may not be able to conduct or complete clinical trials on the expected timelines, if at all. • Results of earlier studies or clinical trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results, and initial studies or clinical trials may not establish an adequate safety or efficacy profile for our product candidates to justify proceeding to advanced clinical trials or an application for regulatory approval. • Preliminary, interim or topline data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available or as additional analyses are conducted, and as the data are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. • Although we have obtained marketing authorization for Attruby, we have multiple product candidates in our development pipeline that are still in preclinical or clinical development, which is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes and the potential for substantial delays. We cannot give any assurance that any of our pipeline product candidates will receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized. • If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions for any product candidates that we may identify and develop, our business will be substantially harmed. • Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of product candidates that we may identify and pursue for their intended uses, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization. 5 Table of Contents • We rely entirely on third parties for the manufacturing of commercial supplies of Attruby and Beyonttra and for supplies of our product candidates that we may develop. Our business could be harmed if those third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of drug product, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices. • If the contract manufacturing facilities on which we rely do not continue to meet regulatory requirements or are unable to meet our supply demands, our business will be harmed. • If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates, including low-dose infigratinib, BBP-418, and encaleret, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products or product candidates similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates may be impaired. • Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on product candidates for an adequate amount of time. • Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop. • We may require substantial additional funding to achieve our business goals. If we are unable to obtain this funding when needed and on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, limit or terminate our product development and commercialization efforts. 6 Table of Contents PART I ITEM 1. BUSINESS Overview A New Type of Biopharmaceutical Company BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. is a commercial-stage, multi-product biopharmaceutical company organized around a portfolio operating model to discover, develop, and deliver medicines for patients with genetic diseases. We seek to translate advances in genetic science into therapies for patient populations with significant unmet medical needs. Since our founding 10 years ago, we have advanced multiple programs from discovery through regulatory approval and commercialization. To date, more than 8,500 patients have been treated with our approved medicines, and we have obtained U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) approval for three products. We believe our decentralized hub and spoke model enables us to achieve clinical proof-of-concept with speed and efficiency, demonstrated by an average investment per program of less than $40.0 million to proof-of-concept data and less than $10.0 million to reach Investigational New Drug (“IND”) submission. This efficiency allows us to work on a broad range of scientifically compelling therapies, including programs for underserved conditions which more traditional biopharmaceutical models might leave on the shelf but we believe can be developed on a Net Present Value (“NPV”)-positive basis in our portfolio. In addition to our commercial products led by Attruby, we plan to pursue regulatory submissions for several advanced product candidates, including therapies for achondroplasia, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy type 2I/R9, and autosomal dominant hypocalcemia type 1, which have all recently released positive Phase 3 data. Since inception, we have generated 19 investigational new drug applications and contributed to more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific publications, reflecting our continued focus on advancing the understanding and treatment of genetic diseases. What BridgeBio Is Today Today, BridgeBio is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company with multiple approved products, a growing global commercial footprint, and a portfolio of late-stage development programs with regulatory pathways that we believe to be well-defined. Over the past year, we have demonstrated our ability to translate research and development (“R&D”) efforts into successful commercial execution. Our largest commercial product, acoramidis, was approved by the FDA in November 2024 for the treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy and is being commercialized by BridgeBio in the United States (under the brand name Attruby™). Outside the United States, acoramidis is marketed as Beyonttra™ and is commercialized through strategic collaboration partners, including Bayer in Europe and Alexion in Japan, as well as directly by BridgeBio in certain international markets. Our achievements in 2025 demonstrate strong commercial momentum with the potential for Attruby to become a significant commercial asset over time. In parallel, we are advancing multiple Phase 3 programs across rare and genetically defined diseases and are well advanced in commercial launch preparations following the recent positive data readouts from our infigratinib, BBP-418, and encaleret programs. We believe each of these programs has the potential to serve a significant patient population with best-in-class or first-in-class medicines. On a standalone basis, we believe the commercial expectations for each of these assets are promising and demonstrate the effect of our decentralized R&D engine. During 2026, we expect to progress each of these programs towards anticipated approvals in the United States and Europe and are actively preparing for the worldwide commercial launches of these products, if approved. Lastly, our continued focus on early-stage development includes various expansion indications and we plan to initiate a registrational study of encaleret in chronic hypoparathyroidism and pediatric ADH1 in 2026 alongside studying infigratinib for hypochondroplasia in 2027. We are also developing the next generation of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis (“ATTR-CM”) treatment through a depleter program to explore the potential of disease reversal on ATTR-CM. Finally, we maintain our minority equity interests in GondolaBio, LLC and BridgeBio Oncology Therapeutics, Inc., which are separate companies spun out of BridgeBio and allows us to retain exposure to a broad pipeline of early-stage development opportunities, while remaining focused on advancing and commercializing our core portfolio. 7 Table of Contents Our Objective Function and How We Define Success Our corporate objective at BridgeBio is to develop medicines that meaningfully improve patient outcomes and thereby maximize the positive impact we can have on the quality-adjusted life-years of the patients we serve as quickly as possible. We pursue this objective by advancing programs underpinned by clear genetic drivers, established disease mechanisms, and therapeutic approaches designed to address the underlying cause of disease. We apply a consistent decision framework that considers biological validation, probability of technical success, development timelines, capital requirements, and expected risk-adjusted value. We evaluate performance at the portfolio level based on overall progress across development milestones, regulatory approvals, and commercialization, as well as our ability to reallocate resources as data emerge. This portfolio-based approach allows us to advance multiple programs in parallel and, over time, support a self-reinforcing “flywheel” of portfolio development. The following graphic illustrates our approach to program selection: Exhibit 1 1 As shown in Exhibit 1 above, we apply a quantitative approach to evaluating our programs and our Company as a whole, which typically includes the following factors: • Scientifically grounded program selection: Each program is selected based on strong biological validation, including a clear understanding of disease mechanism and a therapeutic approach designed to address a well-defined genetic condition. We believe this focus supports more predictable development outcomes and a higher probability of technical success over time. • Focus on differentiated medicines: We seek to develop medicines that have the potential to be first-in-class or best-in-class within their respective fields. In evaluating differentiation, we consider factors such as clinical outcomes, timing of therapeutic effect, safety profile, and overall treatment burden, using available clinical data and comparative assessments where appropriate. • Economic sustainability at the program level: Each program is evaluated with the objective of supporting long-term economic sustainability on a risk-adjusted basis. We consider factors such as development timelines, capital requirements, and expected returns in determining whether to advance or continue investment in a program. • Capital efficiency as an operating principle: We emphasize disciplined capital deployment throughout research and development, with a focus on managing costs through early development stages while maintaining flexibility to adjust investment based on emerging data. 1 Shukla, C., Tendler, I., Kumar, N. and Lo, A.W. (2026) Genetic targets, financial creativity: BridgeBio’s model for sustainable drug development. Drug Discovery Today, 31(1), pp. 1–7. 8 Table of Contents Our Hub-and-Spoke Operating Model BridgeBio operates a decentralized, hub-and-spoke model designed to maximize our probability of success over time. This model is intended to allow multiple programs to advance concurrently while enabling capital and other resources to be allocated flexibly as data evolves, consistent with our approach to managing development risk over time. Our “spokes” consist of program-specific teams responsible for research, development, and scientific leadership for individual conditions or product candidates. These teams are accountable for program strategy and day-to-day development decisions. Each spoke is structured as a dedicated, minimum viable development unit, concentrating only the capabilities required to advance a program efficiently while minimizing organizational complexity. Furthermore, within each spoke we focus scientific effort on the rate-limiting questions for program advancement, reducing non-essential experimentation and supporting faster progression to key development milestones. Our “hub” consists of centralized functions that provide shared business and finance operations, clinical and regulatory expertise, and our commercial platform. This structure allows us to separate asset-level scientific development from enterprise-level execution, support disciplined capital allocation, and scale our commercial platform for existing and future commercial products. By maintaining lean, asset-focused teams supported by shared services, the model allows BridgeBio to be “led by the science” while retaining financial discipline in program development and preserve our flexibility to advance or discontinue programs based on the latest data. Portfolio Overview The following portfolio tables summarize our products for which we have previously received regulatory approval and our commercial products and Phase 3 registrational programs, which include our most advanced assets and key value drivers in our portfolio. The tables also include selected early-stage clinical development programs that may contribute to the long-term expansion of our portfolio, subject to clinical progress and regulatory outcomes. Commercial Products Indication Status Products marketed by BridgeBio Attruby (acoramidis) Transthyretin Amyloidosis (ATTR – CM) Approved Products not marketed by BridgeBio Beyonttra (acoramidis) Transthyretin Amyloidosis (ATTR – CM) Approved Nulibry (fosdenopterin) Molybdenum Cofactor Deficiency (MoCD) Type A Approved Truseltiq (infigratinib) Cholangiocarcinoma Approved (withdrawn) Phase 3 Registrational and Selected Phase 2/3 Clinical Development Programs Indication Status Infigratinib Achondroplasia (ACH) Positive Topline Readout BBP-418 Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Type 2I/R9 (LGMD2I/R9) Positive Interim Analysis Topline Readout Encaleret Autosomal Dominant Hypocalcemia Type 1 (ADH1) Positive Topline Readout Infigratinib Hypochondroplasia (HCH) Fully Enrolled Phase 2 study Encaleret Chronic Hypoparathyroidism (CHP) Phase 3 study initiating in 2026 In addition, we maintain a broad set of early-stage development programs and strategic equity investments, as reflected in the following pipeline overview. Together, these clinical and pre-clinical assets may develop into a meaningful driver of future portfolio value and long-term growth potential, subject to clinical progress and regulatory outcomes. 9 Table of Contents Key Highlights • Attruby commercial and clinical momentum: In 2025, Attruby generated significant commercial uptake in the United States, supported by continued prescription growth, expanding prescriber adoption, and additional clinical data demonstrating early and sustained reductions in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ATTR-CM. • Beyonttra commercial momentum in Europe: Beyonttra demonstrated strong early uptake in Europe, led by Germany, where the product achieved an estimated new-to-brand prescription (“NBRx”) share of more than 50% within the first year of launch, reflecting the strong commercial potential of the product in Europe. • Positive Phase 3 results for infigratinib in achondroplasia: In February 2026, we presented topline results from the PROPEL 3 global pivotal study of oral infigratinib in children living with achondroplasia. PROPEL 3 successfully met all primary and secondary endpoints with no serious adverse events related to the drug study. Based on these results, we plan to submit a New Drug Application (“NDA”) to the FDA and a Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”) to the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) in the second half of 2026. • Positive Phase 3 results for encaleret in ADH1: In October 2025, we presented topline results from the Phase 3 CALIBRATE trial of encaleret in autosomal dominant hypocalcemia type 1, which demonstrated statistically significant normalization of serum and urinary calcium versus standard of care. We plan to submit an NDA to the FDA in the first half of 2026. • Positive Phase 3 results for BBP-418 in LGMD2I/R9: In October 2025, we presented Topline data from the Phase 3 FORTIFY study showed BBP-418 achieved its primary and key secondary endpoints in limb-girdle muscular dystrophy type 2I/R9. We plan to submit an NDA to the FDA in the first half of 2026. • International approvals for Beyonttra: In the first half of 2025, Beyonttra received approval for the treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy from the European Commission and the regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom and Japan. 10 Table of Contents Commercial Products ATTRUBY Summary Attruby (acoramidis), previously known as AG10, is a next-generation oral small molecule near-complete transthyretin (“TTR”) stabilizer, and was approved by the FDA in 2024 for the treatment of cardiomyopathy of wild-type or ATTR-CM in adults to reduce cardiovascular death and cardiovascular-related hospitalization. Acoramidis has demonstrated differentiated clinical benefit in ATTR patients in the Phase 3 ATTRibute-CM study and its open label extension. Attruby is the first and only approved product with a label specifying near-complete stabilization of TTR. In 2025, Attruby generated $362.4 million in U.S. net product revenues. These results correspond with increasing patient adoption and prescriber utilization. As of February 20, 2026, we have achieved: • 7,804 unique patient prescriptions 2 in the United States • 1,856 prescribing healthcare professionals 3 , demonstrating the broad and deep penetration of the Attruby story • An estimated >25% share of NBRx for Attruby In February 2025, the European Commission approved acoramidis, under the brand name Beyonttra, for the treatment of adults with ATTR-CM in Europe. In 2025 regulatory approvals for the marketing of Beyonttra were also granted in the United Kingdom and Switzerland. We have licensed commercial rights in Europe to Bayer who are commercializing Beyonttra in all EU member states, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Turkey under our Exclusive License Agreement with Bayer signed in March 2024. The European launch of Beyonttra has delivered strong early uptake, highlighting the product’s significant commercial potential in the region. Germany has been the leading market, with Beyonttra achieving an estimated NBRx share of more than 50% within the first year of launch. In March 2025, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare approved acoramidis, under the brand name Beyonttra, for the treatment of adults with ATTR-CM in Japan. We have licensed commercial rights in Japan to Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease, under the Exclusive License Agreement signed in September 2019 with our subsidiary, Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. In 2025, Beyonttra contributed $105.0 million in license and services revenue following approvals in Europe and Japan. Additionally, we received $11.4 million in royalty revenue primarily earned on net product sales of Beyonttra in Europe and Japan. In 2026, we plan to continue our collaborations with Bayer and Alexion to drive continued growth in Europe and Japan, respectively. Market Opportunity We believe that the total market for ATTR therapeutic interventions will continue to grow for the foreseeable future as the population of diagnosed patients increases because of heightened disease awareness and the increased adoption of non-invasive diagnostic techniques. We believe the potential total global addressable market could exceed $20.0 billion. The number of estimated diagnosed ATTR-CM patients in the United States has grown from fewer than 5,000 in 2019 to more than 50,000 in 2025. As such, we believe that there could be a significant population of either newly diagnosed or undiagnosed patients who have not previously been treated with a disease-modifying therapy and could be treated with acoramidis. We believe acoramidis will also be an important treatment option for patients inadequately managed by the current treatment. Further, we believe that acoramidis has the potential to be a best-in-class stabilizer for the treatment of ATTR-CM and that stabilization is likely to remain the preferred mechanism. We are also encouraged by the potential that depleters could offer for ATTR-CM patients with existing amyloidogenic TTR deposits and are exploring potential combination therapy regimens. 2 Unique patient prescriptions represent the cumulative total number of distinct patients in the United States who have received at least one prescription for Attruby since launch, across all distribution channels. 3 Unique prescribing healthcare professionals represents the cumulative total number of distinct healthcare providers in the United States who have prescribed Attruby at least since launch. 11 Table of Contents Design Overview ATTR is a disease caused by destabilization of TTR tetramers resulting in progressive amyloid deposition. TTR is a protein that occurs naturally in the form of a tetramer, consisting of four identical subunits, or monomers, and performs multiple physiologic roles, including the transport of thyroxine and retinol. In ATTR, TTR tetramers become destabilized due to a mutation in the TTR gene or as part of the natural aging process. Destabilized TTR dissociates into monomers, self-aggregates, and assembles into fibrils that are deposited, predominantly in the heart and nervous system, driving disease pathophysiology. TTR itself is not toxic – it is a normal and essential protein in humans, and humans cannot be born in the absence of the TTR gene. Higher serum TTR levels are associated with increased longevity and reduced cardiovascular and dementia risk in multiple independent studies. Higher serum levels also reflect greater TTR stability. The ATTR disease process begins only when TTR destabilizes to release its monomers, which may then re-aggregate and misfold into amyloid fibrils. Cardiomyopathic ATTR is commonly categorized by its genotypic cause with wild-type ATTR cardiomyopathy (“ATTRwt-CM”), which results from an age-related process, and variant ATTR cardiomyopathy (“ATTRv-CM”). Both forms of the disease are progressive and fatal, though ATTRv-CM patients’ condition often presents at an earlier age and progress more rapidly than patients with wild-type disease, which translates into a worse prognosis in many such patients. ATTRwt-CM and ATTRv-CM patients generally present with symptoms later in life (older than 50) and have median life expectancies of two to five years from diagnosis if untreated. Progression of both forms of the disease can cause significant disability, impact productivity and quality of life, and create a significant economic burden due to the costs associated with patient need for supportive care. As the disease progresses, ATTRwt-CM and ATTRv-CM patients may experience recurrent hospitalizations and repeated interventions. The worldwide estimated prevalence of ATTRwt-CM and ATTRv-CM is greater than 400,000 and 40,000, respectively. We believe that cardiomyopathic ATTR is significantly underdiagnosed today. For example, recent literature has suggested that between 10% to 13% of patients diagnosed with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction may have undiagnosed ATTR-CM. The heart failure with preserved ejection fraction segment represents approximately half of the 6.0 million to 7.0 million estimated people with heart failure in the United States. With the increasing availability of disease-modifying therapeutics, disease awareness is heightened, and the diagnosis rate will likely continue to grow. We believe the population of diagnosed ATTR-CM patients is also growing rapidly due to the shift to an accurate and reliable non-invasive diagnostic imaging technique. Historically, a heart biopsy was required to make a diagnosis of ATTR-CM. Recently, however, it has been shown that scintigraphy with technetium-labeled radiotracers paired with single-photon emission computerized tomography (“SPECT”) imaging is a highly accurate, non-invasive, and cost-effective method for ATTR-CM diagnosis. We believe that both increased disease awareness and availability of this non-invasive diagnostic imaging technique allow for earlier diagnosis of ATTR-CM patients and the identification of previously misdiagnosed patients. Design Criteria Acoramidis is a commercially available, orally administered, small molecule TTR stabilizer that treats ATTR at its source. We designed acoramidis to meet two primary criteria – to preserve circulating native TTR and to reduce amyloid deposition by minimizing toxic monomer formation. TTR is a protein that has been highly conserved throughout evolution, and which is abundant in the plasma with relatively rapid turnover requiring sustained metabolic energy expenditure. Thus, we seek to achieve maximal stabilization of the TTR tetramer rather than elimination. Acoramidis has been shown in preclinical studies and clinical trials to prevent the dissociation of tetrameric TTR into monomers, and in preclinical studies, to reduce the rate of amyloid fibril formation. In addition, it has been shown to lead to increased circulating levels of tetrameric TTR. Acoramidis was designed to bind TTR in a way that causes TTR’s conformational structure to mimic that of the well-characterized T119M variant, a naturally occurring rescue mutation that super stabilizes the TTR tetramer. The T119M variant has been observed to prevent the dissociation of TTR tetramers into monomers; T119M tetramers dissociate 40-fold more slowly than wild-type tetramers in biochemical assays. Known as a trans-allelic trans-suppressor, individuals who coinherit the T119M rescue mutation along with a TTR-destabilizing mutation are protected against the development of ATTR. 12 Table of Contents In third-party clinical trials of tafamidis, another orally administered, small molecule TTR stabilizer, interventional approaches that increased TTR stabilization led to improved outcomes in this disease, as measured by all-cause mortality and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations, and were correlated with increases in serum TTR. Further, based on genetic data, there is a correlation between the level of TTR stabilization, serum TTR levels and disease severity. As a result, we believe that serum TTR is a predictive biomarker for disease prognosis and that observed data from the ATTRibute-CM study showed increases in serum TTR from baseline levels were correlated with reductions in CVH and CVM over 30 months. Based on results from comparative nonclinical studies, we believe that acoramidis has the potential to stabilize TTR to a greater extent than other TTR stabilizers. Summary of Key Clinical Outcomes and Development Milestones in 2025 Announcement Date Study Key Findings March 31, 2025 ATTRibute-CM Variant Subgroup Analysis Acoramidis showed statistically significant reduction in the risk of ACM or first CVH in ATTR-CM Variant patients with a 59% risk reduction versus placebo through Month 30 May 13, 2025 ACT-EARLY First participant dosed in ACT-EARLY, the first clinical study evaluating acoramidis for primary prevention in asymptomatic carriers of pathogenic TTR variants May 19, 2025 ATTRibute-CM Serum TTR Biomarker Analysis Early and sustained increases in serum TTR levels were observed to be independently associated with improved survival May 20, 2025 ATTRibute-CM Post-Hoc Analysis Acoramidis reduced cardiovascular hospitalizations due to atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter by 43% and reduced new-onset AF/AFL by 17% versus placebo in patients without prior AF history August 30, 2025 ATTRibute-CM Open-Label Extension (OLE) Acoramidis demonstrated statistically significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality with a 44% hazard reduction through Month 42 September 28, 2025 ATTRibute-CM Cumulative Cardiovascular Outcomes Analysis Acoramidis was observed to begin reducing the risk of CVM and recurrent CVH within the first month of treatment with a 49% hazard reduction versus placebo at Month 30 November 8, 2025 ATTRibute-CM Variant Subgroup Analysis Acoramidis demonstrated statistically significant reduction in ACM or first CVH in the Variant V142I (V122I) population with a 69% risk reduction versus placebo through Month 30 NULIBRY Fosdenopterin, an intravenous formulation of synthetic cyclic pyranopterin monophosphate, was developed as a treatment for molybdenum cofactor deficiency (“MoCD, Type A”). Fosdenopterin, under the brand name NULIBRY, was approved by the FDA in February 2021 for patients with MoCD Type A. MoCD Type A is an ultra-rare condition, with estimated incidence ranging from approximately one in 341,000 to one in 411,000 live births. As a result, the addressable patient population is extremely small, and the commercial market is limited in absolute size. Prior to the approval of NULIBRY, there were no approved therapies for any form of MoCD, and treatment was limited to supportive and symptomatic care. Upon FDA approval in February 2021, NULIBRY became the first and only approved therapy for this condition. The approval was supported by orphan drug designation and resulted in the issuance of a Priority Review Voucher. In March 2022, Sentynl Therapeutics, Inc. acquired global rights to NULIBRY and assumed responsibility for its ongoing development, manufacturing, and commercialization worldwide. NULIBRY remains commercially available. BridgeBio did not generate significant royalty revenue from product sales of NULIBRY during 2025. TRUSELTIQ TRUSELTIQ (infigratinib) is a selective fibroblast growth factor receptor (“FGFR”) inhibitor. In May 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval to TRUSELTIQ for the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma with an FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement, as detected by an FDA-approved test. In May 2023, the FDA announced the withdrawal of the accelerated approval for TRUSELTIQ. Although TRUSELTIQ is no longer commercially available, we continue to utilize related intellectual property in ongoing clinical investigations involving other FGFR-related conditions. Commercialization and Product Support We have built our commercial organization in the U.S. to support the commercialization of Attruby in the U.S. Following FDA approval in November 2024, we launched Attruby in the U.S. with a sales force appropriately sized to call on all ATTR-CM treatment centers in the U.S. and other community cardiologists who treat ATTR-CM patients in the U.S. 13 Table of Contents Our sales force is focused on promoting Attruby to healthcare providers and effectively communicating product benefits. Attruby is the first and only approved product for adults with ATTR-CM in the U.S. with a label specifying near-complete stabilization of TTR. The full prescribing information (“PI”) for Attruby can be accessed at www.ATTRUBY.com. We estimate that there are approximately 240,000 ATTR-CM patients in the U.S., part of a global patient population of around 500,000. Attruby has already demonstrated category-leading results including: • Demonstrated effects on clinical outcomes and quality of life, with effects observed as early as one month and three months, respectively • 42% reduction in composite of all-cause mortality and recurrent cardiovascular-related hospitalization events at Month 30 • 50% reduction in the cumulative frequency of cardiovascular-related hospitalization events at Month 30 We believe these results support the strong value proposition of Attruby and underscore the opportunity to improve the lives of patients with ATTR-CM. To ensure patients can access and afford this treatment, we have established several industry-leading access programs. We also offer a Commercial Co-Pay program for eligible commercial patients, which can provide access to Attruby for free. We also offer Attruby for free to patients who are uninsured or underinsured through our Patient Assistance Program (“PAP”) and provide a free 28-day trial to patients new to Attruby. For Medicare patients, the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) limited out-of-pocket costs (“OOP”) and capped OOP at $2,000.00 annually, effective January 1, 2025. Additionally, patients participating in the Medicare Prescription Payment Program are eligible to spread their out-of-pocket costs into monthly payments, not to exceed $167.00 per month, inclusive of all Part D medications. Dual-eligible and Low-Income Subsidy patients will pay no more than $13.00 per month. To ensure ease of access, Attruby is distributed in the U.S. through a limited network of specialty pharmacies, specialty distributors and third-party logistics providers. Medication can be dispensed directly to patients or directly from approved hospital pharmacies to patients. We currently partner with Bayer for the commercialization of Beyonttra in Europe and Alexion for commercialization of Beyonttra in Japan. We plan to leverage a full-service distribution partnership to support commercialization of Beyonttra in additional markets. We continue to evaluate our commercialization strategy as we advance each product candidate through clinical development and to regulatory approval. In any core markets outside of the United States that we may identify, we may elect to utilize strategic partners, distributors or contract management and sales organizations to assist in the commercialization of any of our approved products in certain geographies. Manufacturing We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently utilize third-party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) for all required raw materials, drug substance, drug product and packaging for our commercial products and for our preclinical research and our ongoing clinical trials of our product candidates. We have secured long-term manufacturing agreements with CMOs to produce and support our commercial sale of Attruby in the U.S., and of Beyonttra in certain markets outside of the United States. We intend to continue to rely on CMOs for later-stage development and commercialization of our product candidates, including any additional product candidates that we may identify. Although we rely on CMOs, we have employees and third-party consultants with extensive manufacturing experience to oversee the relationships with our contract manufacturers. Refer to Note 11 of Part II - Item 8. Financial and Supplementary Data - Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for further details. 14 Table of Contents Development Portfolio – Phase 3 Registrational Candidates Our Phase 3 portfolio comprises multiple programs with positive late-stage clinical data advancing toward potential regulatory submissions. Together, these programs represent the most mature assets in our portfolio and illustrate the breadth and commercial potential of our in-house development engine. Infigratinib for Achondroplasia Summary We are developing low-dose infigratinib, an oral, selective FGFR1-3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, for the treatment of children with achondroplasia and hypochondroplasia, two skeletal dysplasia programs caused by gain-of-function mutations in the fibroblast growth factor 3 (“FGFR3”) gene. Infigratinib acts directly at the pathophysiological cause of achondroplasia by inhibiting overactive FGFR3 signaling and addresses the underlying genetic driver of disease. Our objective with low-dose infigratinib is to provide a differentiated treatment option that targets FGFR3 at its source while offering an oral route of administration that reduces treatment burden for children and their families. Infigratinib has received Breakthrough Therapy Designation, and Rare Pediatric Disease Designation from the FDA for achondroplasia, as well as Fast Track Designation and Orphan Drug Designation for both achondroplasia and hypochondroplasia. PROPEL 3 Top-Line Readout On February 12, 2026, we reported positive Phase 3 Topline results from our PROPEL 3 study for oral infigratinib with the first statistically significant improvements in body proportionality in achondroplasia. PROPEL 3 is a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pivotal study evaluating low-dose infigratinib at 0.25 mg/kg/day in children ages 3 to <18 years with open growth plates. PROPEL 3 successfully met the primary endpoint of change from baseline in annualized height velocity (“AHV”) at Week 52 (p<0.0001). Change from baseline in AHV was superior to placebo at Week 52 with a mean treatment difference against placebo of +2.10 cm/year; the least squares (“LS”) mean was +1.74 cm/year. PROPEL 3 successfully met the key secondary endpoint of change from baseline in height Z-score (achondroplasia reference population) at Week 52 (p<0.0001), with an LS mean increase on the treatment arm of +0.41 SD. Oral infigratinib was well tolerated, with no discontinuations or serious adverse events related to the drug study, 3 cases (4%) of hyperphosphatemia considered mild and transient with not a single case requiring either dose reduction or discontinuation, and no adverse events associated with inhibition of FGFR1 or 2. Market Opportunity We believe that achondroplasia and other FGFR-driven skeletal dysplasias represent a potentially over $5.0 billion total global market opportunity. We believe that low-dose infigratinib, if approved, would have meaningful commercial potential to demonstrate best-in-class efficacy as well as a differentiated oral route of administration preferred by many patients. Infigratinib is administered orally as a sprinkle capsule that can be swallowed whole or the capsules can be opened with the granules administered on soft food. Despite the availability of approved injectable therapies, a substantial proportion of eligible children remain untreated, with injection burden frequently cited as the primary barrier to initiation or continuation of therapy. If approved, we believe low-dose infigratinib could support broader uptake across both treatment-naïve patients and those currently receiving injectable therapies, particularly given its oral administration and mechanism designed to directly address FGFR3-driven disease biology. Condition Overview and Design Criteria Achondroplasia is the most common heritable cause of disproportionate short stature with a prevalence of greater than 55,000 in the United States and Europe. It is caused by gain-of-function variants in the gene encoding fibroblast growth factor 3 (“FGFR3”). This alteration impairs the process of endochondral skeletal ossification through inhibition of chondrocyte proliferation and differentiation. This inhibition occurs through the signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (“STAT1”) and mitogen-activated protein kinase (“MAPK”) pathways in chondrocytes. Persons living with achondroplasia can have a variety of medical complications, functional limitations and psychosocial challenges. 15 Table of Contents We are developing low-dose infigratinib based upon two key design principles. First, we seek to target achondroplasia at its source (FGFR3 overactivity) in order to address all manifestations of the condition, not just height. Second, we also seek to provide a tolerable oral treatment option in order to provide a reduced burden of treatment versus injection for children and their families. As an FGFR1-3 inhibitor, we believe that low-dose infigratinib has the potential to decrease downstream signaling of FGFR3 and treat both conditions at the source. Unlike C-type natriuretic (“CNP”) analogs, which only inhibit MAPK signaling, our approach is aimed at also inhibiting STAT1 signaling. We believe low-dose infigratinib is the only investigational therapy with Phase 3 results that incorporates both these design principles. Development Status and Next Steps Based on the positive topline results of PROPEL 3, we intend to submit an NDA to the FDA and an MAA to the EMA in the second half of 2026 for achondroplasia. In addition, we have dosed the first participant in the PROPEL infant and toddler study (“PROPEL I&T”). PROPEL I&T is a Phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, preceded by a single ascending dose portion and a Phase 2 open-label portion, to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral infigratinib in infants and young children living with achondroplasia. In addition, the open-label, long-term extension study of infigratinib in children with achondroplasia is ongoing to evaluate the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of infigratinib in subjects with achondroplasia. This study will allow the confirmation that changes observed during the first or second year of treatment will continue during the growth period resulting in a clinically relevant improvement in final height and a trend toward improvement of other clinically relevant parameters, such as complications associated with ACH. Infigratinib has received Breakthrough Therapy Designation, and Rare Pediatric Disease Designation from the FDA for achondroplasia, as well as Fast Track Designation and Orphan Drug Designation for both achondroplasia and hypochondroplasia. 16 Table of Contents Encaleret for the treatment of Autosomal Dominant Hypocalcemia Type 1 Summary Encaleret is an investigational, oral small molecule, negative allosteric modulator of the calcium sensing receptor (“CaSR”) that we are developing for the treatment of Autosomal Dominant Hypocalcemia Type 1 (“ADH1”) and Chronic Hypoparathyroidism (“CHP”). CALIBRATE Topline Readout In October 2025, we reported positive data from our Phase 3 topline results for encaleret in patients with ADH1. The CALIBRATE study, our global Phase 3 registrational study of encaleret in adults with ADH1, met all prespecified primary and key secondary endpoints, demonstrating statistically significant superiority of encaleret compared to conventional therapy. The CALIBRATE study was designed to study the efficacy and safety of encaleret in adult and adolescent ADH1 patients. The primary endpoint was defined as the proportion of participants randomized to receive encaleret achieving both serum calcium (8.3-10.7 mg/dL) and urine calcium (<300 mg/day for males and <250 mg/day for females) in the respective target ranges. The primary endpoint—defined as the proportion of participants achieving both serum calcium and 24-hour urine calcium within their respective target ranges at Week 24—was achieved by 76% of participants administered encaleret, compared to 4% of the same participants while on conventional therapy (p<0.0001). In a key secondary analysis, 91% of participants receiving encaleret achieved intact parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels above the lower limit of the reference range at Week 24, compared to 7% on conventional therapy (p<0.0001). Encaleret demonstrated rapid and sustained normalization of serum calcium and urine calcium, with improvements observed within days of treatment initiation and maintained through the 24-week maintenance period. Among participants who met the primary endpoint on encaleret, none required conventional therapy during the maintenance period. Encaleret was generally well tolerated, with no discontinuations related to the drug study. Among the randomized trial participants, 97% elected to join in the study’s long-term extension to further evaluate the durability of response to encaleret. Following these results, we plan to submit an NDA to the FDA in the first half of 2026, followed by an MAA to the EMA. Market Opportunity We believe that ADH1 is a serious medical condition with unmet needs and represents a market with significant commercial potential. ADH1 is caused by gain-of-function variants of the CASR gene, and independent studies of general population genetic datasets estimate that there are 25,000 carriers of ADH1-causative variants in the EU and US. If approved, encaleret could be the first targeted therapy indicated for the treatment of ADH1. Additionally, if approved, we believe there are market expansion opportunities for encaleret in pediatric ADH1 and in chronic hypoparathyroidism given its profile as an orally administered therapy. ADH1 Disease Overview and Design Criteria ADH1 is a rare autosomal dominant genetic disease where gain of function variants in the CASR gene result in overactive CaSRs for patients. Overactive CaSRs cause dysregulation of calcium homeostasis including lower serum calcium and PTH levels as well as higher urine calcium levels. Symptoms of hypocalcemia can vary in severity, and include hypocalcemic seizures, paresthesia, tetany, and muscle cramps. Patients have a long-term risk of nephrolithiasis, nephrocalcinosis, and chronic kidney disease from elevated urine calcium levels. ADH1 Development Status and Next Steps We plan to dose the first participant in the registrational Phase 2/3 study of encaleret in pediatric ADH1 in the first quarter of 2026. Our development activities are focused on expanding the potential populations that would benefit from encaleret. Some ADH1 patients start experiencing symptoms soon after birth and many end up being diagnosed with a hypocalcemia-related disorder earlier in life (median age of diagnosis is 4 years old). There is a median delay of approximately two decades before patients receive a genetically confirmed diagnosis. To expand treatment options for younger patients, we plan to dose the first participant in a registrational Phase 2/3 study investigating encaleret in pediatric ADH1 in the first quarter of 2026. 17 Table of Contents Encaleret has been granted orphan drug and fast track designations by the FDA for the treatment of autosomal dominant hypocalcemia. Encaleret has also been granted orphan designation by the European Commission and by the Japan Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare as a treatment for hypoparathyroidism and ADH1. 18 Table of Contents BBP-418 for the treatment of Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Type 2I/R9 Summary BBP-418 is an investigational, orally administered, small molecule therapy that we are developing for the treatment of LGMD2I, also known as LGMDR9 FKRP-related. FORTIFY Interim Topline Readout In October 2025, we reported positive topline results from the planned interim analysis of FORTIFY, a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study evaluating BBP-418 in individuals with LGMD2I/R9. The FORTIFY interim analysis met all primary and key secondary endpoints, demonstrating statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements across biomarker and functional measures, with a favorable safety profile. Based on the FORTIFY interim analysis results and prior regulatory interactions, we are engaging with the FDA as we plan for submission of an NDA in the first half of 2026. If approved, BBP-418 may be eligible for a Priority Review Voucher under the Rare Pediatric Disease program. The FORTIFY study remains ongoing, with additional data collection and longer-term follow-up continuing. BBP-418 has received Orphan Drug Designation, Fast Track Designation, and Rare Pediatric Disease Designation from the FDA, as well as Orphan Drug Designation from the EMA. Market Opportunity LGMD2I/R9 affects an estimated approximately 7,000 individuals across the United States and Europe, including patients with LGMD2I/R9 and other potentially addressable dystroglycanopathies. The disease is underdiagnosed, and progression often leads to loss of ambulation, respiratory compromise, and cardiomyopathy. If approved, BBP-418 has the potential to become the first disease-modifying therapy for LGMD2I/R9. We plan to commercialize BBP-418 globally and are leveraging BridgeBio’s established rare disease commercial infrastructure, including launch experience, market access capabilities, and patient support services, to prepare for a potential launch. Disease Overview and Design Criteria LGMD2I/R9 is an inherited neuromuscular disorder characterized by lower-limb weakness and loss of ambulation, and possible pulmonary and cardiac dysfunction. BBP-418 has a potentially-addressable patient population of 7,000, including both LGMD2I/R9 and other potentially-addressable dystroglycanopathies, in the United States and Europe. Currently, there is no disease-modifying treatment available. Standard of care is supportive care to alleviate end organ dysfunction. The rationale for developing BBP-418 as a potential treatment for LGMD2I/R9 is based on our understanding of the disease mechanism. In healthy tissue, a properly functioning Fukutin-Related Protein (“FKRP”) glycosylates alpha-dystroglycan (“αDG”). This glycosylation helps to stabilize muscle cells by binding extracellular ligands. In LGMD2I/R9, mutated FKRP does not function properly and results in dysfunctional, hypo-glycosylated αDG in muscle cells, limiting αDG’s ability to function as a “shock absorber” for muscle fibers and increasing cellular susceptibility to damage. BBP-418 is designed to target the disease mechanism of LGMD2I/R9 by supplying supra-physiological levels of BBP-418 upstream to drive residual activity of the mutant FKRP enzyme and increase glycosylated αDG levels. Development Status and Next Steps BBP-418 is currently being evaluated in the ongoing FORTIFY Phase 3 study. Based on the positive interim analysis results and our interactions with the FDA to date, we intend to submit an NDA to the FDA in the first half of 2026. The key findings from the planned interim analysis at 12 months included: • A statistically significant near doubling (1.8-fold increase) in glycosylated αDG from baseline at 3 months compared to approximately no change in the placebo group ( p <0.0001), with improvements sustained through 12 months ( p <0.0001) • An 82% mean reduction from baseline in serum creatine kinase (CK), a marker of muscle damage, which was statistically significant compared to placebo ( p <0.0001) • Statistically significant improvements in ambulatory function, as measured by the 100-meter timed test ( p <0.0001), and pulmonary function, as measured by forced vital capacity (FVC) ( p =0.0071) 19 Table of Contents • Statistically significant and clinically meaningful 2.6 point benefit on North Star Assessment (NSAD) for limb-girdle type muscular dystrophies compared to placebo (nominal p=0.0001) • Consistent treatment effects across planned subgroups, including genotype (individuals with the L276I homozygous genotype vs. those with other FKRP variants), age group (pediatric vs. adult), and pulmonary function (baseline FVC ≥80% vs. baseline FVC 40-80%) • Well-tolerated safety profile, with no new or unexpected safety findings and no treatment-related serious adverse events observed The approval, timing, and scope of any potential regulatory submission will depend on further regulatory review, the completeness of the clinical data package, and discussions with regulatory authorities. If approved, we expect to leverage our commercial infrastructure to support the potential launch of BBP-418 globally, subject to all regulatory outcomes. 20 Table of Contents Development Portfolio – Phase 2 Pipeline Candidates Our Phase 2 development portfolio includes expansion indications of our Phase 3 programs with commercial potential, as well as standalone programs that have demonstrated clinical proof-of-concept. These programs represent the next set of potential product candidates emerging from our portfolio-based development model. Encaleret for the treatment of Chronic Hypoparathyroidism (“CHP”) In September 2025, we completed a Phase 2 proof-of-concept study investigating the PTH-independent effects of encaleret on renal calcium handling in patients with post-surgical hypoparathyroidism. In collaboration with clinical researchers at the National Institutes of Health, the study enrolled 10 patients. Encaleret treatment resulted in PTH-independent normalization of blood and urine calcium in 80% of participants to be within the normal reference range within 5 days of encaleret initiation compared to 0% of participants on conventional therapy at baseline. Encaleret was well tolerated with no serious adverse events reported over the study period. Based on these positive results, we completed an End of Phase 2 interaction with the FDA, and we plan to initiate a registrational Phase 3 study in adults with CHP in the summer of 2026. CHP represents a larger potential patient population with an estimated 200,000 patients in the US and Europe. Existing clinical data support the continued evaluation of encaleret as an orally administered treatment option for patients with CHP. Infigratinib for Hypochondroplasia We are developing low-dose infigratinib for hypochondroplasia, a related FGFR3-driven skeletal dysplasia characterized by disproportionate short stature and variable skeletal and neurologic manifestations. There are currently no FDA-approved pharmacologic therapies for hypochondroplasia. We believe that the total global market opportunity for hypochondroplasia will approach that of the achondroplasia market, driven by growing awareness of the condition due to ongoing clinical trials in the condition. We believe that low-dose infigratinib, if approved, would have meaningful commercial potential as a differentiated oral route of administration preferred by many patients. We are enrolling participants in ACCEL, a prospective natural history study in children with hypochondroplasia. This trial is designed to establish baseline growth parameters, including AHV, in children with hypochondroplasia. ACCEL is intended to support enrollment into ACCEL 2/3, a planned Phase 2/3 interventional program consisting of an initial open-label phase followed by a randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluating the safety and efficacy of infigratinib. Enrollment in the Phase 2 portion of ACCEL 2/3 has been completed, with proof-of-concept results expected in the second half of 2026. Based on the positive PROPEL 3 study topline data for oral infigratinib for achondroplasia, we plan to accelerate the development of oral infigratinib in hypochondroplasia, and are enrolling the observational run-in for the Phase 3 trial. BBP-812 for the treatment of Canavan disease Canavan disease (“CD”) is an ultra-rare neurodegenerative disease with approximately 1,000 patients across the US and EU. CD is usually fatal within the first two decades of life, and more than 25% of patients die by the age of 10 years. Children with CD exhibit global and severe cognitive, motor, and language impairment, missing or regressing on most developmental milestones. There are currently no therapies approved for the treatment of CD. If approved, BBP-812 has the potential to become the first disease-modifying therapy for CD. BBP-812 has previously received Orphan Drug, Fast Track, Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, and Rare Pediatric Disease Designations from the FDA and Orphan Drug Designation from the EMA. Consistent with the Rare Pediatric Designation from the FDA, if BBP-812 is approved, we may qualify for a Priority Review Voucher. We are conducting a Phase 1/2 study (CANaspire) for BBP-812 for Canavan disease. The program is designed to provide a first disease-modifying therapy by targeting the condition at its source and supporting accelerated approval through a single registrational study using a biomarker. It also leverages an established IV AAV9 safety profile while avoiding invasive neurosurgery through a less burdensome intravenous treatment approach. 21 Table of Contents Development Portfolio - Early-Stage and Clinical Development Interests Our early-stage and clinical development activities and interests include a combination of internally developed programs and minority ownership interests in independent companies that were spun out of BridgeBio in 2024. Evanesco (Depleter) BridgeBio has initiated a next-generation depleter program for the potential treatment of ATTR-CM. While TTR stabilizers and gene-silencing therapies reduce the formation of new amyloid, many patients are diagnosed after meaningful amyloid deposition has already occurred. A therapeutic approach capable of removing existing amyloid deposits could be used in combination with current therapies and may expand the addressable patient population in ATTR-CM. If successfully developed, this program could complement BridgeBio’s existing ATTR-CM portfolio and support a more comprehensive treatment regimen addressing both prevention of new deposits and clearance of existing amyloid burden. The depleter is a monoclonal antibody designed to selectively bind misfolded, amyloidogenic TTR and promote clearance through macrophage-mediated phagocytosis. The program incorporates several design features intended to enhance differentiation, including preferential binding to amyloid fibrils over native TTR, Fcγ receptor enhancement to support immune-mediated clearance, pH-dependent antigen release to facilitate antibody recycling, and FcRn-mediated half-life extension to enable less frequent dosing. The ATTR-CM depleter program is currently in preclinical development. BridgeBio plans to advance the program into the clinic in 2027–2028, subject to successful completion of IND-enabling studies and regulatory review. GondolaBio GondolaBio, LLC (“GondolaBio”) is an independent company focused on the discovery and development of therapies for rare genetic diseases. GondolaBio operates with its own management team and development strategy and maintains a diversified pipeline of early and mid-stage programs across multiple therapeutic areas and modalities, including hematologic, neurologic, renal, hepatic, and dermatologic genetic disorders. As of December 31, 2025, BridgeBio held a 27.5% ownership interest in GondolaBio, which is subject to dilution as additional capital is contributed to GondolaBio through equity investments by third-party investors. A key program within the pipeline is PORT-77, a small-molecule ABCG2 inhibitor in Phase 2a development for erythropoietic protoporphyria (“EPP”), a rare genetic disease with significant unmet medical need, for which positive proof-of-concept clinical data have been reported. Based on clinical data to date, GondolaBio intends to initiate a Phase 2b/3 clinical trial in 2026, pending regulatory feedback. BridgeBio Oncology Therapeutics, Inc. BridgeBio Oncology Therapeutics (“BBOT”) is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company advancing a next-generation pipeline of novel small molecule therapeutics targeting RAS and Phosphoinositide 3-kinase malignancies. See Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a description of transactions involving BBOT and TheRas, Inc., our former majority-owned subsidiary, which was deconsolidated in April 2024 and completed a business combination transaction with BBOT’s predecessor, Helix Acquisition Corp. II, in August 2025. On August 11, 2025, BridgeBio Oncology Therapeutics, Inc. became listed on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “BBOT.” As of December 31, 2025, BridgeBio held an 18.2% ownership interest in BBOT. BBOT’s pipeline includes multiple clinical-stage and late preclinical programs, including direct KRAS inhibitors and other genetically targeted oncology assets. Several of BBOT’s programs have advanced into clinical trials and have reported early clinical activity, supporting the continued progression of its pipeline. BBOT’s programs span multiple tumor types and are designed to address resistance mechanisms and limitations of earlier-generation targeted therapies. 22 Table of Contents Competition The biopharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and we face competition from established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic research institutions, developing therapies for similar indications. Some competitors may have greater financial, regulatory, manufacturing, and commercial resources. Competition is based on factors including clinical performance, regulatory approval, intellectual property protection, pricing and reimbursement, and commercial execution. There can be no assurance that our products or product candidates, if approved, will achieve market acceptance relative to competing therapies. Material Commercial Products ATTRUBY Attruby/Beyonttra (acoramidis) for the treatment of adults with ATTR-CM competes with Vyndaqel / Vyndamax (tafamidis meglumine / tafamidis), which is a commercial product marketed by Pfizer, Inc. and approved in certain territories, including the United States, the European Union, and Japan as a treatment for ATTR-CM. In addition, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s vutrisiran received regulatory approvals in 2025 for the treatment of ATTR-CM in multiple jurisdictions globally, and Attruby/Beyonttra competes with vutrisiran in markets where it is approved. Additionally, there are a number of RNAi, antisense oligonucleotide, antibody, and gene editing product candidates that are currently in development as potential treatments for ATTR-CM. Phase 3 Registrational programs Infigratinib for Achondroplasia Low-dose infigratinib is an orally administered selective FGFR1-3 inhibitor in late-stage clinical development for achondroplasia. Other companies are developing therapies for achondroplasia, including Ascendis Pharma A/S (TransCon CNP), Tyra Biosciences, Inc. (TYRA-300), and Ribomic (RBM-007), each of which targets pathways associated with FGFR3 signaling through different mechanisms. If approved, infigratinib would compete with BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.’s Voxzogo® (vosoritide), which is approved in multiple territories, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Brazil, and Australia, as well as with other investigational therapies that may receive regulatory approval in the future. We are aware of the following companies pursuing clinical development of product candidates for the treatment of achondroplasia: Ascendis Pharma A/S (TransCon CNP), Tyra Biosciences Inc. (TYRA-300), and Ribomic (RBM-007). BBP-418 – Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Type 2I/R9 (LGMD2I/R9) To our knowledge, there are currently no approved therapies indicated for LGMD2I/R9. Encaleret – Autosomal Dominant Hypocalcemia Type 1 (ADH1) There are currently no approved disease-modifying therapies specifically indicated for ADH1, and conventional therapy currently consists of oral calcium and/or activated vitamin D supplementation. Encaleret, if approved, may compete with conventional therapy and other investigational agents evaluated to normalize blood and urine calcium in ADH1. 23 Table of Contents Intellectual Property Overview We strive to protect the proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business through a variety of methods, including seeking and maintaining patents and patent applications intended to cover our product candidates and compositions, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture, our platform technologies and any other aspects of inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We seek to obtain domestic and international patent protection and, in addition to filing and prosecuting patent applications in the United States, we may file counterpart patent applications in additional countries where we believe such foreign filing is likely to be beneficial, including Australia, Canada, Europe, China, Japan, and Mexico. We have entered into various license agreements to obtain the rights to use certain patents for the development and commercialization of our product candidates, as discussed further in the section titled, “ Our Material Agreements .” We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. Our success will depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary rights protecting our commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our current and future issued patents, if any, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategy in order to best fortify our position, and file additional patent applications when our intellectual property strategy warrants such filings. We also rely on know-how, continuing technological innovation, and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our intellectual property portfolio. We seek to obtain domestic and international patent protection, and endeavor to promptly file patent applications for new commercially valuable inventions. 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 patent scope can be reinterpreted by the courts after issuance. Moreover, many jurisdictions permit third parties to challenge issued patents in administrative proceedings, which may result in further narrowing or even cancellation of patent claims. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any patents, if issued, will provide sufficient protection from competitors. Because patent applications in the United States and certain other jurisdictions are maintained in secrecy for 18 months or potentially even longer, and since publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending patent applications. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings or derivation proceedings declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to determine priority of invention. As of February 6, 2026, our intellectual property portfolio is composed of over 200 issued patents and over 300 patent applications that we license from academic and research institutions and other third parties or that we own or co-own, including through our subsidiaries. These patents and patent applications generally provide us with the rights to develop our product candidates in the United States and worldwide. Our intellectual property portfolios for each of the programs that we consider to be our core value drivers are further described below. For our subsidiary, QED Therapeutics, Inc. (“QED”), we license rights from Novartis under two issued U.S. patents, and related pending and issued foreign patents and patent applications in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan and Mexico, as well as in other countries in Asia and in South America, that are directed to compositions of matter of infigratinib. The foreign patents and patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between 2025 and 2030. The issued U.S. patents are expected to expire between 2028 and 2029, which takes into account patent term adjustments granted by the USPTO as well as a terminal disclaimer of one issued patent to another U.S. patent. Upon the initial approval of infigratinib, QED applied for 1,516 days of patent term extension (“PTE”), for the U.S. patent covering the infigratinib compound; assuming grant of the PTE application, the term of this patent may be extended from August 25, 2029, to October 19, 2033. We also license rights from Inserm Transfert ESA and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris under two issued U.S. patents and one pending U.S. patent application, and one granted patent in Europe, that are directed to methods of treating skeletal dysplasias using infigratinib. The issued U.S. patents, granted patent in Europe, and the pending patent application, if issued, are expected to expire in 2032. In addition, QED owns two pending U.S. patent applications, and related pending foreign patent applications in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan and Mexico, as well as in other countries, that are directed to methods of treating skeletal disorders using infigratinib. If any patents issue from these patent applications, such patents would be expected to expire between 2041 and 2044. 24 Table of Contents For our subsidiary Eidos Therapeutics, Inc., we license rights from the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, or Stanford, under ten issued U.S. patents, two pending U.S. patent applications, one issued European patent, and one issued Japanese patent with claims directed to composition of matter and methods of use relating to acoramidis. These patents are expected to expire in 2031 or 2033, not including any potential patent term extension. Upon approval of acoramidis, patent term extension applications were timely filed for multiple U.S. patents licensed from Stanford. In addition, we own eight issued U.S. patents, five pending U.S. patent applications, one Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) patent application, and over 60 related foreign issued patents and patent applications in various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, Europe, China, Japan, and Mexico, with claims directed to salt and solid forms, methods of manufacturing, dosing methods, and/or formulations relating to acoramidis. The issued U.S. and foreign patents are expected to expire in 2038 or 2039. The pending U.S. and foreign patent applications, if issued, are also expected to expire between 2038 and 2044. For our subsidiary, Calcilytix, Inc., we license rights from Japan Tobacco Company under one issued U.S. patent and two foreign patents in Europe and Japan that are directed to compositions of matter of encaleret. These patents expired in 2024 and 2025. In addition, Calcilytix owns or co-owns one issued U.S. patent, three pending U.S. patent applications, and over thirty related foreign patent applications pending in various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, Europe, China, Japan, and Mexico with claims to formulations, dosing methods, and patient selection methods relating to encaleret. The pending U.S. and foreign patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between 2041 and 2044, not including any potential patent term extension. For our subsidiary, ML Bio Solutions, Inc. (“ML Bio”), we license rights from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Atrium Health under eight issued U.S. patents, two pending U.S. patent applications, and over thirty related foreign patent applications pending in various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, Europe, China, Japan, and Mexico with claims to methods of treatment, dosing methods, and compositions relating to BBP-418. The issued U.S. patents are expected to expire in 2037 or 2040, not including any potential patent term extension. The pending U.S. and foreign patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between 2037 and 2041, not including any potential patent term extension. In addition, ML Bio owns one pending U.S. patent applications relating to assays. The pending U.S. patent application, if issued, is expected to expire in 2044. Our Material Agreements Acoramidis (Attruby/Beyonttra) License Agreement with Bayer On March 1, 2024, certain subsidiaries of the Company, including Eidos, BridgeBio International GmbH and BridgeBio Europe B.V. (collectively, the “Seller Parties”), entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “Bayer License Agreement”) with Bayer Consumer Care AG, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG (“Bayer”), to develop and commercialize acoramidis as a treatment for transthyretin amyloidosis in the EU and all member and extension states of the European Patent Organization (the “Licensed Territory”). Under the terms of the Bayer License Agreement, the Seller Parties granted Bayer an exclusive license on March 26, 2024 to certain of the Seller Parties’ intellectual property rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize acoramidis (previously known as AG10) in the Licensed Territory. In consideration for the license grant, the Seller Parties are entitled to receive an upfront payment of $135.0 million, which was received in full in May 2024, and will be eligible to receive up to $150.0 million in regulatory and sales milestone payments through 2026 (of which a regulatory milestone of $75.0 million was achieved in February 2025 upon EC approval of acoramidis under the brand name Beyonttra and received in April 2025), and additional payments up to $450.0 million subject to the achievement of certain sales milestones. In addition, the Seller Parties are entitled to receive royalties according to a tiered structure starting in the low-thirties percent on net sales by Bayer of acoramidis in the Licensed Territory, subject to reduction under certain circumstances as provided in the Bayer License Agreement. Unless earlier terminated, the Bayer License Agreement will expire at the end of the royalty term for a licensed product, provided that the licenses granted to Bayer for such licensed product survive such expiration on a non-exclusive basis. Either party may terminate the Bayer License Agreement in the event of a material breach or insolvency of the other party or in the event merger control proceedings are started and clearances are not obtained. Additionally, Bayer may terminate the Bayer License Agreement for convenience upon at least 270 days’ prior written notice, and Eidos may terminate the agreement in the event Bayer ceases exploitation of Beyonttra under certain circumstances or challenges the validity or enforceability of Eidos’ patent rights. 25 Table of Contents In June 2024, BridgeBio Europe B.V. (“BridgeBio B.V.”) entered into a commercial supply agreement with Bayer (“Bayer Commercial Supply Agreement”) with an initial 30-month term ending in December 2026, for which BridgeBio B.V. will manufacture and supply to Bayer the commercial product ordered by Bayer solely for use in the commercialization in the Licensed Territory under the Bayer License Agreement. In March 2025, BridgeBio B.V. and Bayer entered into an agreement (“Bayer API Supply Agreement”) for the manufacture and supply by BridgeBio B.V. to Bayer of API solely for the use in the commercialization in the Licensed Territory. The Bayer API Supply Agreement has an initial term ending in December 2026, which is consistent with the Bayer Commercial Supply Agreement. The Bayer Commercial Supply Agreement and the Bayer API Supply Agreement are collectively referred to as the “Bayer Supply Agreements.” Under the Bayer Supply Agreements, Bayer shall pay to BridgeBio B.V. a per unit price equal to the applicable fully burdened manufacturing cost per unit of the product. Refer to Footnote 11 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ” for further details. License Agreement with Alexion In September 2019, through our subsidiary Eidos, we entered into a license agreement (the “Eidos-Alexion License Agreement”), with Alexion Pharma International Operations Limited Company, a subsidiary of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together, “Alexion”), to develop and commercialize Beyonttra in Japan. Under the terms of the Eidos-Alexion License Agreement, Eidos granted Alexion an exclusive license to certain of our intellectual property rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize Beyonttra in Japan. In consideration for the license grant, Eidos received an upfront payment of $25.0 million and became eligible to receive a regulatory milestone payment of $30.0 million. Following pricing approval from the National Health Insurance in Japan in May 2025, the regulatory milestone was fully achieved and recognized as license and services revenue, and in June 2025, Eidos received the $30.0 million regulatory milestone payment. Under the Eidos-Alexion License Agreement, Eidos is eligible to receive royalties in the low-teens based on net sales of acoramidis in Japan. The royalty rate is subject to reduction if Alexion is required to obtain intellectual property rights from third parties to develop, manufacture or commercialize Beyonttra in Japan, or upon the introduction of generic competition into the market. Furthermore, in October 2024, Alexion notified Eidos that it intends to initiate the ACT-EARLY clinical trial in Japan under the Eidos-Alexion License Agreement for an upfront payment received by Eidos of $3.0 million. Refer to Footnote 11 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ” for further details. License Agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University In April 2016, through Eidos, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Stanford for rights relating to novel transthyretin aggregation inhibitors. Under our agreement, Stanford has granted us an exclusive worldwide license to make, use and sell products that are covered by the licensed patent rights. This license grant expires when the last licensed patent expires. The patent rights exclusively licensed to us under the license are described in more detail above under the heading “Intellectual property— Eidos Therapeutics, Inc.” Stanford and Eidos agree in good faith to meet and discuss performance of development milestones which are specified in amendments to the license agreement. Stanford retains the right, on behalf of itself and all other non-profit academic research institutions, to practice under the patent rights for any non-profit purpose, including sponsored research and collaborations. We may grant sublicenses to third parties so long as we are actively pursuing the development or commercialization of products covered by the patent rights. We may also be required to sublicense our rights under the agreement at Stanford’s request under certain conditions, including if we are unwilling or unable to serve a potential market or territory and there is a third party willing to be a sublicensee in such market or territory. We are obligated to pay to Stanford a yearly license maintenance fee during the term of the agreement, but we may offset the maintenance fee against earned royalty payments due on net sales occurring in that year. Stanford is entitled to receive a royalty as a percentage of net sales of licensed products, in the low single digits. We have agreed to pay Stanford a percentage of non-royalty revenue we receive from our sublicensees, with the amount owed decreasing annually for three years based on when we enter into the applicable sublicense agreement. In addition, we are obligated to pay Stanford up to approximately $1.0 million upon the achievement of specific intellectual property, clinical and regulatory milestone events. In the event of a change of control transaction with respect to Eidos, we are obligated to pay Stanford a change of control fee of $250,000 in connection with the assignment of the license agreement to the acquirer of Eidos. Under the license agreement with Stanford, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture, and commercialize at least one licensed product; to develop markets for such licensed products; and to meet certain development milestones as agreed upon between us and Stanford. 26 Table of Contents Subject to the expiration of the license grant described above, the agreement does not have a specified term. We may terminate the agreement by providing prior written notice to Stanford, and Stanford has the right to terminate the agreement if we fail to achieve certain milestones or make payments under the agreement or are not actively pursuing development of a licensed product, or if we otherwise materially breach the agreement and fail to cure such breach within a specified grace period. Refer to Footnote 12 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ” for further details. Infigratinib Kyowa Kirin Exclusive License On February 7, 2024, the Company’s subsidiary, QED, and Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd (“Kyowa Kirin” or “KKC”) entered into a license and collaboration agreement pursuant to which QED granted Kyowa Kirin an exclusive license to develop, manufacture, and commercialize infigratinib for achondroplasia, hypochondroplasia, and other skeletal dysplasias in Japan, in accordance with the terms therein (the “KKC License Agreement”). In consideration for the license grant, QED is entitled to receive an upfront payment of $100.0 million, which was received in full in June 2024, and will be eligible to receive development and sales milestone payments up to $81.4 million. In addition, QED is entitled to receive royalties up to the mid-twenties percent on net sales of infigratinib in Japan. Unless earlier terminated, the KKC License Agreement will expire at the end of the royalty term for a licensed product, provided that the licenses granted to Kyowa Kirin for such licensed product survive such expiration on a non-exclusive basis. Either party may terminate the KKC License Agreement in the event of a material breach or insolvency of the other party. Additionally, Kyowa Kirin may terminate the KKC License Agreement for convenience upon at least 180 days’ prior written notice, and QED may terminate the KKC License Agreement in the event Kyowa Kirin ceases exploitation of infigratinib under certain circumstances or challenges the validity or enforceability of Kyowa Kirin’s patent rights. Refer to Footnote 11 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ” for further details. License Agreement with Novartis International Pharmaceutical Ltd. In January 2018, through our subsidiary QED, we entered into a license agreement with Novartis International Pharmaceutical Ltd. (“Novartis”), for certain intellectual property rights, including patents and know-how, related to infigratinib for the treatment of patients with FGFR-driven diseases, including achondroplasia and hypochondroplasia. We refer to this agreement as the Novartis License. Pursuant to the Novartis License, we obtained a license to research, develop, make, have made, use, import, offer for sale, sell, have sold and otherwise commercialize infigratinib, as well as therapeutic products incorporating infigratinib that would, but for the license grant, infringe Novartis’ license patent rights, or that were developed using or that incorporate or embody Novartis’ licensed know-how, in all fields of use worldwide. The license grant to us includes the right to sublicense through multiple tiers. We also have certain rights to intellectual property licensed to Novartis’ affiliate under a materials transfer agreement with a third party. The Novartis License is subject to Novartis’ existing obligations to supply a third party with infigratinib to support the third party’s clinical trials, and we have an ongoing obligation to inform Novartis of our or our sublicensees’ intent to seek regulatory approval for and commercialize infigratinib for various indications, with potential reversionary rights to Novartis in the event of a subsequent decision not to seek regulatory approval and commercialization, or a determination by Novartis that we have failed to sufficiently pursue regulatory approval and commercialization, for Novartis to grant such third party limited rights to develop and commercialize infigratinib. Under the terms of the Novartis License, we made a one-time payment of $15.0 million to Novartis and agreed to issue shares of Series A preferred stock of QED valued at approximately $1.7 million in the aggregate to Novartis. In addition, we are obligated to make contingent milestone payments totaling $60.0 million upon achievement of certain regulatory milestones. We are also obligated to make contingent milestone payments totaling $35.0 million upon achievement of certain sales milestones for therapeutic products incorporating infigratinib. QED also agreed to pay Novartis tiered low double-digit royalties on net sales of therapeutic products incorporating infigratinib. Following the FDA’s approval of TRUSELTIQ TM in May 2021, we paid a one-time regulatory milestone payment to Novartis of $20.0 million. Under the Novartis License, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop infigratinib, and to obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize infigratinib in the United States and the European Union. 27 Table of Contents We may terminate the Novartis License in its entirety or on a product-by-product or country-by-country basis at any time with 60 days’ prior written notice to Novartis. Novartis may terminate if QED ceases to function as a going concern, is the subject of certain bankruptcy or similar proceedings, or otherwise winds down or discontinues its business. Either party may terminate for material breach that is not cured by the other party within a specified time period of receiving notice of such material breach. Otherwise, the Novartis License terminates on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis on the latest of the expiration of licensed patent rights, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity, or the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale in such country. Corporate Royalty Interest Purchase and Sale Agreement On June 27, 2025 (the “Closing Date”), we and our subsidiary, Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. (“Eidos”), entered into a Royalty Interest Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “Royalty Purchase Agreement”) with Acoramidis Royalty SPV, LP (“ARS”), an affiliate of HealthCare Royalty Management, LLC (“HCRx”), as a purchaser and the purchaser representative (in such capacity, the “Purchaser Representative”), and LSI Financing Fund, LP, an affiliate of Blue Owl Capital Corporation, as a purchaser (together with ARS as a purchaser and any future permitted assignees of a purchaser, the “Royalty Agreement Purchasers”). Subsequent to the Closing Date, on July 30, 2025, KKR & Co. Inc., a beneficial holder of our common equity and a related party, acquired a majority ownership interest in HCRx. Accordingly, HCRx became our related party following KKR & Co. Inc.’s acquisition of HCRx. Pursuant to the Royalty Purchase Agreement, Eidos sold to the Royalty Agreement Purchasers certain of Eidos’ right to receive certain royalty payments (“Purchased Royalty Payment”) on net sales of certain products containing acoramidis (the “Licensed Products”) made in the EU and all member and extension states of the European Patent Organization (the “Licensed Territory”). As consideration for the sale of the Purchased Royalty Payment, the Royalty Agreement Purchasers agreed to pay Eidos $300.0 million in cash (the “Purchase Price”), which was funded in full on the Closing Date. The Royalty Agreement Purchasers’ rights to the Purchased Royalty Payment are subject to (a) an annual cap equal to 60% of all royalty payments on the first $500.0 million of annual net sales of Licensed Products in the Licensed Territory and (b) an initial hard cap equal to 145% of the Purchase Price. We recognized net cash proceeds of $297.0 million in June 2025, after deducting debt issuance costs of $3.0 million. Refer to Footnote 10 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ” for further details. 2031 Notes On February 28, 2025, we issued an aggregate of $575.0 million principal amount of our 2031 Notes pursuant to an Indenture dated February 28, 2025 (the “2031 Notes Indenture”), between us and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as trustee (the “2031 Notes Trustee”), in a private offering to qualified institutional buyers (the “2025 Note Offering”) pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The 2031 Notes issued in the 2025 Note Offering include $75.0 million aggregate principal amount of 2031 Notes sold to the initial purchasers of the 2031 Notes (the “2031 Notes Initial Purchasers”) pursuant to the exercise in full of the 2031 Notes Initial Purchasers’ option to purchase additional 2031 Notes. The 2031 Notes are senior, unsecured obligations of BridgeBio and will accrue interest payable semiannually in arrears on March 1 and September 1 of each year, beginning on September 1, 2025, at a rate of 1.75% per year. The 2031 Notes will mature on March 1, 2031, unless earlier converted, redeemed or repurchased. The 2031 Notes are convertible into cash, shares of BridgeBio’s common stock or a combination of cash and shares of BridgeBio’s common stock, at our election. We received net proceeds from the 2025 Note Offering of approximately $563.0 million, after deducting the 2031 Notes Initial Purchasers’ discount and offering costs. We used approximately $48.3 million of the net proceeds from the 2025 Note Offering to pay for the repurchase of shares of BridgeBio’s common stock as further described in Footnote 9 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ” and used a portion of the net proceeds from the 2025 Note Offering to repay all outstanding borrowings under, and terminate, the Financing Agreement, as defined in Footnote 9 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ”, and pay any fees related thereto. Subsequent Event - 2033 Notes, net On January 21, 2026, we issued an aggregate of $632.5 million principal amount of our 2033 Notes. Refer to Footnote 19 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ” for further details. 28 Table of Contents Financing Agreement On January 17, 2024, we entered into a Financing Agreement (the “Financing Agreement”) with certain of our subsidiaries party thereto as guarantors, the lenders party thereto (the “Lenders”) and Blue Owl Capital Corporation, as administrative agent for the Lenders (the “Administrative Agent”), which was amended on February 12, 2024 and June 20, 2024 (the Financing Agreement, as amended by the second amendment, the “Amended Financing Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Amended Financing Agreement, the Lenders have agreed to extend a senior secured credit facility to us in an aggregate principal amount of up to $750.0 million comprised of (i) an initial term loan in an aggregate principal amount of $450.0 million (the “Initial Term Loan”) and (ii) one or more incremental term loans in an aggregate amount not to exceed $300.0 million (collectively, the “Incremental Term Loan,” and together with the Initial Term Loan, collectively, the “Term Loans”), subject to the satisfaction of certain terms and conditions set forth in the Amended Financing Agreement. The Initial Term Loan was funded on January 17, 2024. Incremental Term Loans are available at the Lenders’ and our mutual consent from time to time after January 17, 2024. On February 28, 2025, the Company fully repaid the Amended Financing Agreement for $467.0 million, which consisted of $450.0 million for the outstanding principal, $9.0 million for the prepayment fee, and $8.0 million in accrued interest using the proceeds from the 2031 Notes and recognized a loss on extinguishment of debt of $21.2 million. Refer to Footnote 9 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ” for further details. Funding Agreement On January 17, 2024, we and our subsidiaries entered into a Funding Agreement with LSI Financing 1 Designated Activity Company and CPPIB Credit Europe S.à r.l. together, the (“Purchasers”). Pursuant to the Funding Agreement, the Purchasers agreed to pay to the Company $500.0 million (net of certain transaction expenses) upon the first FDA approval of acoramidis, subject to certain conditions relating to the FDA approval and other customary conditions (such date of payment, “Funding Date”). In return, we granted the Purchasers the right to receive payments (the “Royalty Interest Payments”) equal to 5% of the global net sales of acoramidis, and may adjust to a maximum rate of 10% (which would take effect in 2027, if certain conditions are met). Each Royalty Interest Payment will become payable to the Purchasers on a quarterly basis after the Funding Date. The Purchasers’ rights to the Royalty Interest Payments and ownership interest in Net Sales will terminate upon the earlier of the Purchasers’ receipt of (a) Royalty Interest Payments equal to $950.0 million (“Cap Amount”) and (b) a buy-out payment (“Buy-Out Payment”) in an amount determined in accordance with the Funding Agreement but that will not exceed the Cap Amount. In addition, we and our subsidiaries granted the collateral agent, for the benefit of the Purchasers, a security interest in specific assets related to acoramidis. The Funding Agreement will terminate upon customary events. Following the FDA approval of Attruby on November 22, 2024, and in accordance with the Funding Agreement, we received gross cash proceeds of $500.0 million in December 2024, and recognized debt discount and issuance costs paid in cash of $27.5 million. Refer to Footnote 9 of the “ Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ” for further details. Government Regulation Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, manufacture, testing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products, including gene therapies, as well as diagnostics, and any future product candidates. Generally, before a new drug, biologic or diagnostic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved, authorized, or cleared by the applicable regulatory authority. 29 Table of Contents U.S. Government Regulation of Drug and Biological Products In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and its implementing regulations and biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics also are subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations, such as those related to competition. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or following approval may subject an applicant to administrative actions or judicial sanctions. These actions and sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, license revocation, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, voluntary or mandatory product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal fines or penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our business, the market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, and our reputation. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA through either an NDA or a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following: • completion of extensive preclinical studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including studies conducted in accordance with Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”) requirements; • submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; • approval by an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) or independent ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each human trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, Good Clinical Practices (“GCP”) requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for each proposed indication; • submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA; • a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA or BLA to accept the filing for review; • satisfactory completion of one or more FDA pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug or biologic will be produced to assess compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug or biologic’s identity, strength, quality and purity; • potential FDA audit of the clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA or BLA; • payment of user fees for FDA review of the NDA or BLA; and • FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA, including consideration of the views of any FDA advisory committee, prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug or biologic in the United States. The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and the regulatory scheme for drugs and biologics is evolving and subject to change at any time. We cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. Preclinical Studies Before testing any drug, biological or gene therapy candidate in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies. 30 Table of Contents An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive AEs and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time, the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. Additionally, the review of information in an IND submission may prompt FDA to, among other things, scrutinize existing INDs or any marketed products and could generate requests for information or clinical holds on other product candidates or programs. Clinical Trials The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Information about certain clinical trials, including clinical trial results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules are subject to oversight by institutional biosafety committees (“IBC”) as set forth in the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (“NIH Guidelines”). Under the NIH Guidelines, recombinant and synthetic nucleic acids are defined as (i) molecules that are constructed by joining nucleic acid molecules and that can replicate in a living cell (i.e., recombinant nucleic acids); (ii) nucleic acid molecules that are chemically or by other means synthesized or amplified, including those that are chemically or otherwise modified but can base pair with naturally occurring nucleic acid molecules (i.e., synthetic nucleic acids); or (iii) molecules that result from the replication of those described in (i) or (ii). Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of 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 or BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Clinical trials generally are conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, which may overlap or be combined. • Phase 1 clinical trials generally involve a small number of healthy volunteers or disease-affected patients who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the product candidate. The primary purpose of these clinical trials is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action, side effect tolerability and safety of the product candidate. 31 Table of Contents • Phase 2 clinical trials involve studies in disease-affected patients to evaluate proof of concept and/or determine the dose required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further PK and PD information is collected, possible adverse effects and safety risks are identified, and a preliminary evaluation of efficacy is conducted. • Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve a large number of patients at multiple sites and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product for its intended use, its safety in use and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators 15 days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected AEs, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and other types of clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. 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 a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life. FDA Review Process Following completion of the clinical trials, data are analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. The NDA or BLA is a request for approval to market the drug or biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety and efficacy for a drug or safety, purity and potency for a biologic. The application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of FDA. FDA approval of an NDA or BLA must be obtained before a drug or biologic may be marketed in the United States. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), as amended, each NDA or BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs or BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. 32 Table of Contents The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs and BLAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA or BLA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA or BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA or BLA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA or original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA or original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs or BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates an NDA or BLA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug or biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA or BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require the applicant to obtain additional clinical data, including the potential requirement to conduct additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or to complete other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, or to conduct additional preclinical studies or manufacturing activities. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA or BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or 200,000 or more individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues. Competitors, however, may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication but that could be used off-label in the orphan indication. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication we are seeking approval, or if our product is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. In February 2026, Congress passed legislation codifying the FDA’s longstanding regulatory interpretation that orphan drug exclusivity applies only to the specific approved use or indication of a drug or biological product, rather than to all uses within a designated rare disease or condition. If we pursue marketing approval for an indication broader than the orphan drug designation we have received, we may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, requirements and benefits. 33 Table of Contents Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and PRVs Under the FDCA, as amended, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs and biologics that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the United States a drug for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the United States of such drug. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug or biologic application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug product, referred to as a PRV. A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its NDA or BLA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its NDA or BLA. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. On February 3, 2026, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, which reauthorized the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program through September 30, 2029. Expedited Development and Review Programs A sponsor may seek to develop and obtain approval of its product candidates under programs designed to accelerate the development, FDA review and approval of new drugs and biologics that meet certain criteria. For example, the FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biologics that are intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. For a fast track-designated product, the FDA may consider sections of the NDA or BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for fast track status any time before receiving NDA or BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-NDA or pre-BLA meeting. A product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development or review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Priority review means that, for a new molecular entity or original BLA, the FDA sets a target date for FDA action on the marketing application at six months after accepting the application for filing as opposed to ten months. A product is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biologic designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. If criteria are not met for priority review, the application for a new molecular entity or original BLA is subject to the standard FDA review period of ten months after FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), a platform technology incorporated within or utilized by a drug or biologic is eligible for designation as a designated platform technology if (1) the platform technology is incorporated in, or utilized by, a drug approved under an NDA or BLA; (2) preliminary evidence submitted by the sponsor of the approved or licensed drug, or a sponsor that has been granted a right of reference to data submitted in the application for such drug, demonstrates that the platform technology has the potential to be incorporated in, or utilized by, more than one drug without an adverse effect on quality, manufacturing, or safety; and (3) data or information submitted by the applicable person indicates that incorporation or utilization of the platform technology has a reasonable likelihood to bring significant efficiencies to the drug development or manufacturing process and to the review process. A sponsor may request the FDA to designate a platform technology as a designated platform technology concurrently with, or at any time after, submission of an IND application for a drug that incorporates or utilizes the platform technology that is the subject of the request. If so designated, the FDA may expedite the development and review of any subsequent original NDA or BLA for a drug that uses or incorporates the platform technology. Designated platform technology status does not ensure that a drug will be developed more quickly or receive a faster FDA review process or ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may revoke a designation if the FDA determines that a designated platform technology no longer meets the criteria for such designation. 34 Table of Contents A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies upon a determination that the product has an effect on either a surrogate that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the disease or condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing confirmatory clinical trials with due diligence and, under FDORA, the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that such confirmatory studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after accelerated approval is granted. In addition, the FDA currently requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. Additionally, a drug or biologic may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If the FDA designates a breakthrough therapy, it may take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application, which may include holding meetings with the sponsor and the review team throughout the development of the therapy; providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development of the drug to ensure that the development program to gather the nonclinical and clinical data necessary for approval is as efficient as practicable; involving senior managers and experienced review staff, as appropriate, in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary review; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor; and considering alternative clinical trial designs when scientifically appropriate, which may result in smaller trials or more efficient trials that require less time to complete and may minimize the number of patients exposed to a potentially less efficacious treatment. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of fast track designation, which means that the sponsor may file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis if certain conditions are satisfied, including an agreement with the FDA on the proposed schedule for submission of portions of the application and the payment of applicable user fees before the FDA may initiate a review. As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress amended the FDCA to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies (“RMATs”), which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. RMATs do not include those human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products regulated solely under section 361 of the PHSA and 21 CFR Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and qualify for RMAT designation. A sponsor may request that the FDA designate a product candidate as a RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. The FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the product candidate meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a product candidate that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A product candidate with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval, breakthrough therapy, and RMAT designation do not change the standards for approval. 35 Table of Contents Pediatric Information and Pediatric Exclusivity Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), certain NDAs and BLAs and certain supplements to an NDA or BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (“FDASIA”), amended the FDCA to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration, unless the drug is for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted and is not for a molecularly targeted cancer indication, submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”) within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs. A drug or biologic product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods for all formulations, dosage forms, and indications of the active moiety and, for drugs, patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection and, for drugs, patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study provided that at the time pediatric exclusivity is granted there is not less than nine months of term remaining. Post-Marketing Requirements Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences to applicable regulatory authorities, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among other things, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, requirements for promotional activities on the internet, restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved label (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatment, but the FDA regulations do impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication, and may be required to be reviewed in advance in certain circumstances such as for products that receive accelerated approval. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, 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/BLA or NDA/BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials. Such regulatory reviews can result in denial or modification of the planned changes, or requirements to conduct additional tests or evaluations that can substantially delay or increase the cost of the planned changes. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS 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. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory requirements, if problems occur following initial marketing or if the FDA determines that the product is no longer safe or effective. 36 Table of Contents FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of any approved products in accordance with cGMP regulations. NDA and BLA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP regulations, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA or BLA, including recall or withdrawal of the product from the market. Any distribution of prescription drugs and biologics and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”) and the PHSA. In addition, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, was enacted in 2013 with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs and biologics distributed in the United States. The stabilization period has ended for trading partners to build and validate interoperable systems and processes to meet certain requirements of the DSCSA. Currently, trading partners without validated interoperable tracing systems must obtain an exemption from FDA. The DSCSA’s requirements also include the quarantine and prompt investigation of a suspect product, to determine if it is illegitimate, notifying trading partners and the FDA of any illegitimate product, and compliance with product tracking and tracing requirements. Once an approval is granted, the FDA may issue enforcement letters or withdraw the approval of the product if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the drug or biologic reaches the market. Corrective action could delay drug or biologic distribution and require significant time and financial expenditures. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug or biologic, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may require revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, including the addition of new warning and contraindications; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: • mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors; • restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the drug or biologic, suspension of the approval, complete withdrawal of the drug from the market or product recalls; • fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials; • refusal of the FDA to approve applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of drug or biologic approvals; • drug or biologic seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of drugs; or • injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced, passed in Congress and signed into law that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing, and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations, guidance, and policies are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect the manner in which pharmaceutical products are regulated and marketed. 37 Table of Contents Regulation of Companion Diagnostics We believe that the success of certain of our product candidates may depend, in part, on the development and commercialization of a companion diagnostic. Companion diagnostics identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercialization. The primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification, also called 510(k) clearance, approval of a premarket approval (“PMA”) application, or grant of a de novo request for classification. To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or to a preamendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a predicate device, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA application. In making a determination that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the FDA compares the proposed device to the predicate device or predicate devices and assesses whether the subject device is comparable to the predicate device or predicate devices with respect to intended use, technology, design and other features which could affect safety and effectiveness. If the FDA determines that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device or predicate devices, the subject device may be cleared for marketing. The 510(k) premarket notification pathway generally takes from three to twelve months from the date the application is completed, but can take significantly longer. PMA applications must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA application typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA application, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the Quality Management System Regulation, or QMSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. The FDA’s review of an initial PMA application is required by statute to take between six to ten months, although the process typically takes longer, and may require several years to complete. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA application. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA application or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny the approval of the PMA application or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA application approvable. Once granted, PMA application approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post-approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. On July 31, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance document, for novel therapeutic products that depend on the use of a diagnostic test and where the diagnostic device could be essential for the safe and effective use of the corresponding therapeutic product, the premarket application for the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic, although the FDA recognizes that there may be cases when contemporaneous development may not be possible. However, in cases where a drug cannot be used safely or effectively without the companion diagnostic, the FDA’s guidance indicates it will generally not approve the drug without the approval or clearance of the diagnostic device. The FDA also issued a draft guidance in July 2016 setting forth the principles for co-development of an in vitro companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product. The draft guidance describes principles to guide the development and contemporaneous marketing authorization for the therapeutic product and its corresponding in vitro companion diagnostic. To date, the FDA has required premarket approval for nearly all companion diagnostics for cancer therapies. In January 2024, the FDA announced its intention to initiate the reclassification process for most in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics. Further, the FDA indicated that in addition to the reclassification process, the FDA will continue taking a risk-based approach in the initial classification of individual in vitro diagnostics to determine whether a new test may be classified into class II through the de novo classification process. In so doing, the FDA indicated that it may regulate most future companion diagnostics as class II devices. 38 Table of Contents Once cleared or approved, the companion diagnostic device must adhere to post-marketing requirements including the requirements of FDA’s quality system regulation, adverse event reporting, recalls and corrections along with product marketing requirements and limitations. Like drug and biologic makers, companion diagnostic makers are subject to unannounced FDA inspections at any time during which the FDA will conduct an audit of the product(s) and the Company’s facilities for compliance with its authorities. Biosimilars and Exclusivity Certain of our product candidates are regulated as biologics. An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCI Act”), as part of the ACA. This amendment to the PHSA, in part, attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products as compared to small molecule drugs, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA. A reference biological product is granted four and twelve year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. The FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and the FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until twelve years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the other company’s product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. Other Regulatory Matters Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) including the Office of Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights, other divisions of the Department of HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments. Healthcare providers, physicians, and third party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers and physicians and any future arrangements with third party payers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). 39 Table of Contents 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, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by imprisonment, 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. Moreover, the ACA provides that 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 federal civil False Claims Act or federal civil money penalties. Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (the “Sunshine Act”), within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) report annually to CMS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians, certain other licensed health care practitioners and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, physicians, certain other healthcare professionals, and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians, certain other healthcare professionals, and their immediate family members. We may also be subject to federal price reporting laws, which require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products. Further, we may face obligations under federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers. Similar federal, state and foreign fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services. Such laws are generally broad and are enforced by various state agencies and private actions. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require us to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws and regulations described above, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant federal government compliance guidance, and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state and require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State and foreign laws, including, for example, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, which became effective May 2018 also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties. Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. We must also comply with federal government price reporting laws, which require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. 40 Table of Contents The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, individual imprisonment, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly and time consuming, and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a Company’s attention from the business. In the United States, to help patients afford our approved product, we may utilize programs to assist them, including patient assistance programs and co-pay coupon programs for eligible patients. PAPs are regulated by and subject to guidance from CMS OIG. In addition, at least one insurer has directed its network pharmacies to no longer accept co-pay coupons for certain specialty drugs the insurer identified. Our co-pay coupon programs could become the target of similar insurer actions. In addition, in November 2013, the CMS issued guidance to the issuers of qualified health plans sold through the ACA’s marketplaces encouraging such plans to reject patient cost-sharing support from third parties and indicating that the CMS intends to monitor the provision of such support and may take regulatory action to limit it in the future. The CMS subsequently issued a rule requiring individual market qualified health plans to accept third-party premium and cost-sharing payments from certain government-related entities. In September 2014, the OIG of the HHS issued a Special Advisory Bulletin warning manufacturers that they may be subject to sanctions under the federal anti-kickback statute and/or civil monetary penalty laws if they do not take appropriate steps to exclude Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons. Accordingly, companies exclude these Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, drug manufacturers can be held liable under federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, such as the federal civil False Claims Act, which imposes criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities (including manufacturers) for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented 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. 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 and, 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. The government may deem manufacturers to have “caused” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. Claims which include items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are false or fraudulent claims for purposes of the False Claims Act. The federal False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery. Our future marketing and activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, if approved, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our products, if approved, and the sale and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law. HIPAA created federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute 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. 41 Table of Contents The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. U.S. Data Collection We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”) and their implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, which imposes requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective business associates, independent contractors, or agents of health covered entities, that perform services for them that involve the creation, maintenance, receipt, use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individual identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities, which include certain health care providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, there may be additional federal, state, and non-U.S. laws which govern the privacy and security of health and other personal information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and criminal penalties. States are also active in creating specific rules relating to the processing of personal information. The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) imposes requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents, including to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them, and offering data subjects the right to request access, correction, deletion and limit the sale and sharing of such personal information. The CCPA may result in significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements, and includes a private right of action for certain data breaches. Similar laws have been passed and proposed in numerous other states. Like the CCPA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data (which includes health data in some cases). The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in dozens of states around the country make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance. Certain states have also specifically regulated consumer health information. For example, Washington’s My Health My Data Act, which went into effect on March 31, 2024, regulates the collection and sharing of consumer health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data. In addition, other states have proposed and/or passed legislation that regulates the privacy and/or security of certain specific types of information. For example, a small number of states have passed laws that regulate biometric data specifically. These various privacy and security laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products. All of these evolving compliance and operational requirements impose significant costs, such as costs related to organizational changes, implementing additional protection technologies, training employees and engaging consultants and legal advisors, which are likely to increase over time. Such requirements may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies, utilize management’s time and/or divert resources from other initiatives and projects. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with any applicable federal, state or foreign laws and regulations relating to data privacy and security could result in damage to our reputation, as well as proceedings or litigation by governmental agencies or other third parties, including class action privacy litigation in certain jurisdictions, which would subject us to significant fines, sanctions, awards, injunctions, penalties or judgments. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. 42 Table of Contents Regulators and legislators in the U.S. are increasingly scrutinizing and restricting certain personal data transfers and transactions involving foreign countries. For example, the Department of Justice’s January 8, 2025, Rule on Preventing Access to U.S. Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, prohibits transfers of data, including health data, genetic data, and biospecimens, to countries of concern, including China. The regulations also restrict certain investment agreements, employment agreements and vendor agreements involving such data and countries of concern, absent specified cybersecurity controls. Actual or alleged violations of these regulations may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, and may result in exclusion from participation in federal and state programs. and could restrict our ability to use certain vendors, sites, investigators, or service providers in global clinical trials. Current and Future Legislation In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in 2010, the ACA was enacted in the United States. The ACA includes measures that have significantly changed, and are expected to continue to significantly change, the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical industry are that the ACA: • made several changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including increasing pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability by raising the minimum basic Medicaid rebate on most branded prescription drugs and adding a new rebate calculation for “line extensions” (i.e., new formulations, such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products. • imposed a requirement on manufacturers of branded drugs to provide a 70% point-of-sale discount off the negotiated price of branded drugs dispensed to Medicare Part D beneficiaries in the coverage gap discount program as a condition for a manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D. • extended a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations. • expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Drug Discount Program. • imposed an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs. • established a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. The research conducted by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute may affect the market for certain pharmaceutical products. The ACA established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending. In addition, other legislative and regulatory changes have also been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted: • On August 2, 2011, the U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031. • On January 2, 2013, the U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. • On April 13, 2017, CMS published a final rule that gives states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. • On May 23, 2019, CMS published a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. 43 Table of Contents • 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, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. Due to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, estimated budget deficit increases resulting from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and subsequent legislation, Medicare payments to providers will be further reduced starting in 2025 absent further legislation. These laws and regulations may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. • In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) was signed into law. The IRA includes several provisions that will impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries to $2,000 starting in 2025; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further under the IRA, and subsequent revisions under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program. Effective for the 2028 initial price applicability year, all orphan drugs, regardless of the number of orphan drug designations or indications, are exempt from the Medicare drug price negotiation program. The implementation of the IRA is currently subject to ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the IRA’s Medicare drug price negotiation program. Although the effects of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general are not yet known, we are taking into consideration the potential impact of the IRA on our development and commercialization activities. Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. On April 15, 2025, the current administration published Executive Order 14273, “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which generally directs the federal government to take measures to reduce drug prices, including eliminating the so-called “pill penalty” under the IRA that creates a distinction between small molecule and large molecule products for purposes of determining when a drug may be eligible for drug price negotiation. On May 12, 2025, the current administration published Executive Order 14297, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” which generally, among other things, directs the federal government to establish and communicate most-favored-nation (“MFN”) price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations. Further, the Executive Order directs the federal government to support regulatory paths to allow direct-to-patient sales for companies that meet these targets. It also states that the Administration will take additional aggressive action (for example, examining whether marketing approvals should be modified or rescinded or opening the door for individual drug importation waivers) should manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the MFN lowest price. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to “take all necessary and appropriate action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in any act, policy, or practice that may be unreasonable or discriminatory or that may impair United States national security . . . including by suppressing the price of pharmaceutical products below fair market value in foreign countries.” Notably, a similar “Most-Favored-Nation” pricing rule enacted under the first Trump administration was subject to an injunction resulting from judicial challenges to the rule, which was formally rescinded by the former Biden Administration in August 2021. On November 6, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) announced a new drug payment model designed to make MFN-level prices available to state Medicaid programs via manufacturer rebates. Referred to as the “GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid Model” (“GENEROUS”), the initiative is designed to run from 2026 through 2030 and is voluntary for both manufacturers and state Medicaid programs. Under the model, participating states will be able to access MFN-level prices for participating manufacturers’ drugs through CMS-negotiated supplemental rebates tied to an MFN net price benchmark. 44 Table of Contents On December 19, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) proposed a mandatory Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) drug payment model to test whether alternative methods for calculating Medicare rebates, based on international pricing metrics rather than inflation-based metrics, reduce costs for Medicare fee-for-service (“FFS”) beneficiaries and the Medicare program while preserving quality of care. The Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (“GUARD”) Model, would test an alternative approach to calculating rebates for certain Medicare Part D products using international pricing benchmarks. The GUARD Model would begin on January 1, 2027, and run through December 31, 2033. Further, on December 19, 2025, CMS proposed the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing Model (“GLOBE”) for Medicare Part B, would require manufacturers of specified single source drugs and sole source biologics to pay incremental rebates based on international benchmark prices, with participation triggered for products meeting CMS’s spending and eligibility criteria. As proposed, GLOBE would begin a five-year performance period on October 1, 2026. A number of these and other proposed measures may change or be repealed by the current administration and it is possible that new legislation may be introduced. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. Federal Government will pay for healthcare drugs and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or additional pricing pressures. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. Federal Government will pay for healthcare drugs and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or additional pricing pressures. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Certain states are also pursuing cost containment efforts through Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (“PDABs”) and similar entities. While many PDABs have been granted authority to promote drug price transparency and reporting, some states have granted PDABs more expansive authority, including to set Upper Payment Limits (UPLs) on select, high price drugs. The adoption and implementation of UPLs may put downward pressure on drug prices and impact our company’s future net product revenues. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future, especially given the recent change in administration. Further federal, state and foreign legislative and regulatory developments are likely, and we expect ongoing initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from product candidates and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. Packaging and Distribution in the United States If our approved products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way. 45 Table of Contents Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our potential products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. Other U.S. Environmental, Health and Safety Laws and Regulations We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations. We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions. U.S. Patent Term Extension and Marketing Exclusivity Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of a drug or biologic, some U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits extension of a patent term of up to five years beyond the normal expiration date of the patent as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. Patent term extension, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension. An NDA or BLA applicant may apply for extension of patent term for its currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA or BLA. Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. 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 action 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 for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of 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 effectiveness. European Union Drug Development In the European Union (“EU”), our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained. 46 Table of Contents Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. In April 2014, the EU adopted the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (“EU Clinical Trials Regulation”), which replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on January 31, 2022. The transitory provisions of the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation provided that, by January 31, 2025, all ongoing clinical trials must have transitioned to the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation overhauled the previous system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. Specifically, the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, which is directly applicable in all Member States (meaning no national implementing legislation in each EU Member State is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. For instance, it provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point (through the Clinical Trials Information Systems) and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications. Compliance with the more complex procedural requirements of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation could result in some delay in the initiation of clinical trials. European Union Drug Review and Approval In the EU, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization (“MA”). There are different routes to obtain an MA in the EU. • The centralized MA is issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the EMA, and is valid throughout the entire territory of the EU, and in the additional countries of the European Economic Area (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, including medicines produced by biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products (gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU. • Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a product and for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of an MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, which makes the final decision to grant an MA, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, excluding clock stops, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. 47 Table of Contents • National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EU and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EU, this national MA can be recognized in another Member State through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the Member States in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State (“RMS”). The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the product characteristics (“SmPC”), and a draft of the labeling and package leaflet, which are sent to the other Member States (referred to as the Concerned Member States) for their approval. If the Concerned Member States raise no objections, based on a potential serious risk to public health, to the assessment, SmPC, labeling, or packaging proposed by the RMS, the product is subsequently granted a national MA in all the Member States (i.e., in the RMS and the Concerned Member States). Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EU make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. European Union New Chemical Entity Exclusivity In the EU, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete and independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU, during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be placed on the EU market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall 10-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies. There is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, however, another company could nevertheless also market another version of the product if such company obtained an MA based on an MAA with a complete and independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials. European Union Orphan Designation and Exclusivity In the EU, the European Commission (upon recommendation of the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products) may grant an orphan designation in respect of a product if its sponsor can establish that: (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (i) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (ii) it is unlikely that the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (3) there must be no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or, if such a method exists, the product would be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. 48 Table of Contents In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following grant of a marketing authorization. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission nor any of the competent authorities in the EU Members States can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product” for the same therapeutic indication. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. This period may be reduced to six years if the orphan designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Market exclusivity may also be revoked in very select cases, such as if (i) it is established that a similar medicinal product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the authorized product; (ii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized orphan product consents to such revocation; or (iii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized orphan product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing authorization. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. Furthermore, when applying for a marketing authorization for an orphan medicinal product, the applicant is required to submit a report justifying the maintenance of the orphan designation, which the EMA will assess in parallel with assessing the application for marketing authorization. There is a risk that any orphan designation granted for our products will not be maintained upon granting of a marketing authorization and that our products will therefore not receive the market exclusivity granted to orphan medicinal products. European Pediatric Investigation Plan In the EU, MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”) agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”) unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when this data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. If an MA is obtained and trial results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product may be eligible for a six month-extension of any existing supplementary protection certificate extension. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted. Regulatory Requirements After a Marketing Authorization has been Obtained If authorization for a medicinal product in the EU is obtained, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion, and sale of medicinal products. These include: • Compliance with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules must be ensured. These rules can impose post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations. • The manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2017/1572, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice. These requirements include compliance with EU cGMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the EU with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the EU. 49 Table of Contents • We are a party to and may from time to time enter into additional agreements with commercial partners to supply our partner with API and bulk or finished drug product for their commercial sales of our product in a licensed territory. In connection with this supply of product, we must comply with any applicable regulations for the purchase, distribution, storage, exporting and sale of API and medicinal products in the licensed territory. For example in June 2024, our wholly-owned subsidiary BridgeBio Europe B.V. (“BridgeBio BV”), which is domiciled in the Netherlands, entered into the Bayer Supply Agreement for which BridgeBio BV has agreed to manufacture and supply to Bayer our commercial product Beyonttra to sell in the EU. To support our obligations under the Bayer Supply Agreement, we have also entered into a commercial manufacturing agreement with a third-party CMO in Germany to manufacture and package the final drug product Beyonttra. We are required to obtain the necessary registration or authorization from the relevant EU authority in order to import the API into the EU, deliver it to our German CMO, and have the final drug product for Beyonttra supplied to Bayer, as well as to export drug product or finished product. Under applicable EU and Dutch regulations, this requires BridgeBio BV to obtain a registration for activities related to API (“API Registration”) and an authorization for wholesale distribution of medicinal products (“WDA”). In order to receive the API Registration and the WDA, we must pass an inspection. • Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to induce or reward improper performance generally is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of the European Union Member States, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the UK. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the EU Directive governing medicinal products for human use, further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the UK despite its departure from the EU. Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) which consists of the EU Member States, plus Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland. Reform of the Regulatory Framework in the EU The European Commission introduced legislative proposals in April 2023 that, if implemented, will replace the current regulatory framework in the EU for all medicines (including those for rare diseases and for children). In April 2024, the European Parliament adopted its position on the legislative proposals and, in June 2025, the Council of the European Union adopted its position. A common position on the text has been agreed upon on December 11, 2025, in the context of subsequent inter-institutional trilogue negotiations. The proposed revisions remain to be adopted, and are not expected to become applicable before 2028. Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom (UK) Following the end of the Brexit transition period on January 1, 2021 and the implementation of the Windsor Framework on January 1, 2025, the UK is not generally subject to EU laws in respect of medicines. The EU and the UK have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement (a “TCA”), which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not provide for wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. 50 Table of Contents The EU laws that have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation remain applicable in the UK as “retained EU law.” However, new EU legislation, such as the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, is not applicable in the UK. Under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, the Secretary of State or an ‘appropriate authority’ have delegated powers to amend or supplement existing regulations in the area of medicinal products and medical devices. This allows new rules to be introduced in the future by way of secondary legislation, which aims to allow flexibility in addressing regulatory gaps and future changes in the fields of human medicines, clinical trials and medical devices. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is governed by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, as amended, which is derived from the Clinical Trials Directive, as implemented into UK national law through secondary legislation. In April 2025, the UK introduced the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations. These changes, which will take full effect from April 2026, aim to create a streamlined, risk-proportionate system that accelerates approvals while maintaining robust safety standards. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is the UK’s standalone medicines and medical devices regulator. As a result of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, different rules applied in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales, and Scotland (together, “Great Britain”), which continued to follow the EU regulatory regime. However, on January 1, 2025 a new arrangement called the “Windsor Framework” came into effect and reintegrated Northern Ireland under the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products. The Windsor Framework removes EU licensing processes and EU labeling and serialization requirements in relation to Northern Ireland and introduces a UK-wide licensing process for medicines. A single UK-wide marketing authorization may be granted by the MHRA for novel medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. In addition, the new arrangements require certain medicines supplied to Northern Ireland under a UK authorization to be labelled “UK only”, indicating they are not for sale in the EU. The MHRA has also introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, including a 150-day assessment and a rolling review procedure. On January 1, 2024, a new international recognition framework was put in place, under which the MHRA may have regard to decisions on the approval of marketing authorizations made by the European Medicines Agency and certain other regulators (including the FDA) when determining an application for a UK authorization. The MHRA also has the power to have regard to marketing authorizations approved in EU Member States (or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) through decentralized or mutual recognition procedures when determining an application for a UK authorization. EU and UK Data Collection The collection and processing of personal data (including health data) in the European Economic Area (EEA) is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (“EU GDPR”). Similarly, the collection and use of personal data (including health data) in the UK is governed by the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the UK Data Protection Act 2018, collectively the UK GDPR, and together with the EU GDPR, “GDPR.” Currently, the EU GDPR and UK GDPR remain largely aligned. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA/UK and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. The GDPR imposes numerous stringent requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing of special categories of personal data (such as health and data), relying on a legal basis or condition for processing personal data, if required obtaining consent of data subjects, providing detailed information to data subjects about how personal data is used, conducting privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, implementing limitations on the retention of personal data, providing mandatory data breach notification, implementing “privacy by design” requirements, and taking certain measures when engaging service providers acting as data processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA/UK to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the United States in certain circumstances unless derogation exists or a valid GDPR transfer mechanism (for example, the European Commission approved Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), and the UK International Data Transfer Agreement/Addendum, or UK IDTA) have been put in place. Where relying on the SCCs /UK IDTA for data transfers, we may also be required to carry out transfer impact assessments to assess whether the recipient is subject to local laws which allow public authority access to personal data. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA Member States may result in fines up to €20 million (or £17.5 million in the UK) or 4% of a company’s global annual revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects and consumer associations the right to claim material and non-material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the European Union’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. 51 Table of Contents The UK Government has introduced a Data Protection and Digital Information Bill to reform the UK data protection legal framework which failed in the UK legislative process. A new Data (Use and Access) Bill (“UK Bill”) has been introduced into parliament. If passed, the final version of the UK Bill may have the effect of further altering the similarities between the UK and EEA data protection regime and threaten the UK Adequacy Decision from the European Commission. Further, this may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk. Rest of the World Regulation For other countries outside of the European Union and the United States, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution. Additional Laws and Regulations Governing International Operations If we further expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions. Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs. The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions. 52 Table of Contents Coverage and Reimbursement Successful commercialization of new drug products depends in part on the extent to which reimbursement for those drug products will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drug products they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford a drug product. Sales of drug products depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of drugs products are paid for by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular drug products. In many countries, the prices of drug products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of drug products under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for drug products may be reduced compared with the United States. There is also significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new drug products are typically made by CMS, an agency within the HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new drug product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is: • a covered benefit under its health plan; • safe, effective and medically necessary; • appropriate for the specific patient; • cost-effective; and • neither experimental nor investigational. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug on their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or another alternative is available. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price (“ASP”) and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs. 53 Table of Contents The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. While all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. Any negotiated prices for any of our future products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors. For a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. As of 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although under the current state of the law these newly eligible entities (with the exception of children’s hospitals) will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. As 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase. These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, and may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. If third-party payors do not consider our drugs to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our drugs after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our drugs on a profitable basis. Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products and medical devices is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some Member States provide that products may be marketed only after the proposed pricing has been approved. Some Member States may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. A Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Member States may allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. Human Capital Management Our human capital philosophy relies on attracting and retaining team members who consistently demonstrate top performance. Our culture and our approach to talent reinforces this philosophy, including recruiting, professional development, performance management and total rewards. We have provided below additional details on some of our core human resources processes. As of December 31, 2025, we had 834 full-time employees and 5 part-time employees. Of these, 405 focus on driving forward research and development programs, 281 focus on our commercialization efforts, either directly or through our affiliates, and 153 work across our affiliates to provide strategic business development, finance and executive leadership expertise, as well as general and administrative services generally across our affiliates. We have never had a work stoppage, and none of our employees is represented by a labor organization or under any collective-bargaining arrangements. We consider our employee relations to be good. 54 Table of Contents Recruiting We have a dedicated talent acquisition capability to support our affiliates in hiring the right talent at the right time. Our team of experienced talent acquisition professionals works closely with hiring managers to understand the required skills and capabilities for an open role, and then supports the interview process and evaluation of candidates. We strive to hire top talent, and therefore need a high-quality recruiting process and candidate experience. We endeavor to fill every role with the most qualified candidate possible, which sometimes requires partnership with an external recruitment agency. We are consistently looking at new opportunities and avenues to recruit talented individuals to work at BridgeBio. The talent acquisition team’s focus is to meet the hiring needs across BridgeBio and our affiliates. We recognize that our current and potential future team members have options for employment opportunities, including with other biotech and pharma companies, research and academic institutions, government entities, and consulting and investment firms. To attract and retain top performing team members, we focus on creating an environment that allows for autonomy, professional growth, and impact while also offering a competitive total rewards package. Professional Development and Performance Management We invest in the professional development of our team members through regular feedback and guidance, as well as targeted learning and development opportunities to meet demonstrated needs. We established a set of five core attributes that we expect every BridgeBio team member to demonstrate while performing in their roles: Patient Champion, Entrepreneurial Operator, Truth Seeker, Inspires Excellence and High-Quality Executor. BridgeBio conducts semi-annual performance review processes for all team members to evaluate performance and provide feedback against these attributes. The feedback focuses on strengths and opportunities for improvement to enable the professional development of all team members. At the end of the year, the performance review includes self, peer, and manager feedback and also includes a formal rating and informs compensation decisions, including performance bonus, salary adjustments, and promotions. Core Values and Ethics Millions worldwide are afflicted with genetic diseases, but small patient populations and industry reluctance to conduct early-stage development means that for many, treatments have not been forthcoming. We are committed to bridging this gap: between business case and scientific possibility, between patient and hope. This starts with our first core value: to put patients first. We also strive to think independently. Our goal is to not simply accept the ideas and opinions of others as fact, but instead to ask “why?” and “why not?” We endeavor to bring a rigorous, first-principles mindset to each problem that we take on. We encourage all our team members to speak up when they have an idea or feedback to share, taking pride in a culture that is radically transparent when it comes to debating ideas. A commitment to independent thinking requires us to consider the ideas of others and to adopt them if they prove best. We strive to maintain a culture where any idea is worthy of both consideration and testing. We know that every minute counts. Our decentralized model strives to deliver treatments from discovery to patients as fast as humanly possible by utilizing focused teams of experts for each asset. Big decisions can be taken by people best-equipped to understand them, without wasting time on unnecessary cycles. And we let Science speak. Our model was designed to promote the rational assessment of our programs. Decisions about a program’s fate are driven by its performance against a set of objective criteria, giving each potential medicine’s scientific merits the last word. All employees are responsible for upholding these values and the BridgeBio Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which forms the foundation of our policies and practices. Total Rewards To attract and retain top talent, we offer a competitive total rewards package. We target total direct compensation at the upper end of market. We link a portion of every employee’s compensation to performance through a performance bonus program. To create a sense of ownership and align employee incentives with our long-term success, we offer eligible employees equity ownership in the company through stock option or restricted stock unit grants and our employee stock purchase plan. We also designed a program to incentivize affiliate-level employees to achieve specific milestones at core value-inflection points, such as IND or NDA approval. We focus our benefits offering on areas critical to keeping our employees and their immediate families healthy and productive. We offer physical and mental health benefits to all employees who work at least 30 hours per week, on average. We have a flexible paid time off policy to empower team members to take the time they need, when they need it. 55 Table of Contents Community We believe that building a strong sense of community at BridgeBio is critical to our success. Team members can only live up to our values of thinking independently, letting science speak, and being radically transparent when they feel a sense of belonging. This is also important to our ability to bring together team members from diverse backgrounds and experiences. We are proud to promote unique voices within and outside our organization, and are eager to learn from others’ experiences. To build community, we make targeted investments at the BridgeBio level. We offer a robust onboarding program for each new hire to ensure they understand the BridgeBio history and culture and are set up for success in their roles. We work closely with people managers to ensure they understand the expectations for the critical role of leading teams. Understanding that communications is essential for a community to thrive, we have regular Town Halls to update the organization on important progress across our scientific and clinical programs. In addition to these large gatherings, we have implemented a number of communications tools to help employees stay informed and connected. Finally, our community is anchored by our commitment to patients, underscored by our commitment to bring the entire company together multiple times a year for Patient Days. On these impactful days, we hear stories from the people who are living with rare genetic diseases, their caregivers and advocates. Corporate and Other Information We were incorporated as a Delaware corporation in 2019 under the name BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 250, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Our telephone number is (650) 391-9740. Our web page address is https://bridgebio.com . Our investor relations website is located at https://investor.bridgebio.com . We make available free of charge on our investor relations website under “SEC Filings” our Annual Reports on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K, including exhibits, our directors’ and officers’ Section 16 Reports and any amendments to those reports after filing or furnishing such materials to the SEC. References to our website address do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document or any other document that we file with or furnish to the SEC. 56 Table of Contents ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS Our business involves significant risks, some of which are described below. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and the related notes. If any of the following risks actually occur, it could harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition and future prospects. In such event, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Risks Related to Commercialization Our business is substantially dependent on the commercial success of Attruby and Beyonttra. The continued commercial success of this product, along with our product candidates, if approved, will depend upon the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community. Our business depends heavily on our ability to successfully commercialize Attruby and Beyonttra. The commercial success of Attruby and Beyonttra or our product candidates, if approved, will depend upon their degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community. Our product candidates, if approved, may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of Attruby and Beyonttra or any other of our product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including: • the efficacy and safety of such product candidates as demonstrated in pivotal clinical trials and published in peer-reviewed journals; • the potential and perceived advantages compared to alternative treatments, including any similar generic treatments; • the ability to offer these products for sale at competitive prices; • the ability to offer appropriate patient access programs, such as co-pay assistance; • convenience and ease of dosing and administration compared to alternative treatments; • the clinical indications for which the product candidate is approved by the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities; • product labeling or product insert requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including any limitations, contraindications or warnings contained in a product’s approved labeling; • restrictions on how the product is distributed; • the timing of market introduction of competitive products, including generics of competing products; • publicity concerning these products or competing products and treatments; • the strength of marketing and distribution support; • favorable third-party coverage and sufficient reimbursement or other assistance for patients who are uninsured or underinsured; and • the prevalence and severity of any side effects or AEs. Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians’ organizations, hospitals, other healthcare providers, government agencies or private insurers will determine that our products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective as compared with competing treatments. If any product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue, and we may not become profitable. 57 Table of Contents If our sales and marketing capabilities for Attruby and Beyonttra, and our future product candidates, if approved, are not effective or we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into and maintain our agreements with third parties to sell and market Attruby and Beyonttra or any future product candidates approved for commercial sale, we may be unsuccessful in our commercial efforts. To achieve and maintain commercial success for Attruby and Beyonttra and any other approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must continue to develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to grow our focused sales, marketing, and commercial support infrastructure to market and sell our product candidates, if and when they are approved. We may also elect to enter into collaborations or strategic partnerships with third parties to engage in commercialization activities with respect to selected product candidates, indications or geographic territories, including territories outside the United States, as we have done with Bayer and Alexion in the case of Beyonttra, although there is no guarantee we will be able to enter into similar arrangements in the future even if the intent is to do so. There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition commercialization personnel. We may also fail to obtain or maintain the necessary regulatory approvals, distribution licenses or other registrations that are required to ship an approved product to a customer or commercial partner, or our contract manufacturers may fail to supply us or our commercial partners with our required or forecasted amounts of finished product, active pharmaceutical ingredients or raw materials to meet commercial demand on a timely basis, or at all. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize any approved product on our own include: • the inability to recruit and retain adequate numbers of effective sales, marketing, reimbursement, customer service, medical affairs, and other support personnel; • the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any future approved products; • the inability of reimbursement professionals to negotiate arrangements for formulary access, reimbursement, and other acceptance by payors; • the inability to price products at a sufficient price point to ensure an adequate and attractive level of profitability; • manufacturing, supply chain or distribution disruptions that delay or prevent the launch and continued commercialization of any approved products by us or a commercial partner; • the failure to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals, state licenses, wholesale distribution licenses or other registrations that are required to ship an approved product to a customer or commercial partner; • the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and • unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent commercialization organization. 58 Table of Contents If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support, and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products we may develop internally. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize, if approved, our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us or them. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively or may expose us to legal and regulatory risk by not adhering to regulatory requirements and restrictions governing the sale and promotion of prescription drug products, including those restricting off-label promotion. Even if we enter into a commercial partnership with a third party, we may have manufacturing, supply chain or distribution disruptions that delay or prevent the commercial launch of an approved product by our partner. There is also a risk that one of our commercial partners decides to terminate our agreement due to a change in its business priorities or financial condition, or due to other circumstances may no longer be able to fulfill its obligations under our agreement, which would negatively impact our ability to sell our products in certain markets and to generate revenues from product sales. If we do not continue to build on our commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates, if approved. Our profitability will depend significantly on our ability to sell enough product at competitive prices and on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement through governmental or private third-party payors. The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain. Our product candidates may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage and reimbursement practices, or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for new or current products could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue. The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage, and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. In the United States, recently enacted legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenue we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates even if those product candidates may obtain marketing approval. See the section titled, “ Business - Government Regulation - Coverage and Reimbursement .” Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments such as gene therapy products. Through December 2025, the approved list price of Attruby in the United States was $18,759.12 for a 28-day supply, which was subsequently increased to $19,790.00 in January 2026. A significant percentage of patients rely on government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, for their coverage of drug and other medical care, so the availability of federal and state coverage of Attruby is critical to the success of our commercialization efforts for Attruby in the United States. Sales of Attruby or any product candidates, if approved, that we may identify will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of such drugs will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, it may not allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. 59 Table of Contents Additionally, we may develop companion diagnostic tests for use with Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates. We, or our collaborators, may be required to obtain coverage and reimbursement for these tests separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement we seek for our product candidates, once approved. Even if we obtain regulatory approval or clearance for such companion diagnostics, there is significant uncertainty regarding our ability to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for the same reasons applicable to our product candidates. Medicare reimbursement methodologies, whether under Part A, Part B, or clinical laboratory fee schedule may be amended from time to time, and we cannot predict what effect any change to these methodologies would have on any product or product candidate or companion diagnostic for which we receive approval. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from both third-party payors for the companion diagnostic tests that we develop and for which we obtain regulatory approval could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to penetrate foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties. We have partnered with Bayer and Alexion to commercialize Beyonttra in Europe and Japan, respectively, and we plan to commercialize Attruby and Beyonttra in other foreign markets. We may also commercialize in foreign markets any future drugs we develop for which we obtain commercial rights through additional partnerships with third parties or directly by ourselves. In addition, we may agree to supply drug product or API to a commercial partner in other foreign markets similar to our agreement with Bayer. In doing so, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including: • the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting, compliance and legal requirements; • different medical practices and customs in foreign countries affecting acceptance in the marketplace; • import, export or other distribution licensing requirements; • the potential failure of obtaining and maintaining required licenses with foreign regulatory authorities that are required to ship API or distribute our drug product to customers or commercial partners like Bayer and Alexion; • longer accounts receivable collection times; • longer lead times for shipping; • language barriers for technical training; • reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries, and related prevalence of bioequivalent or generic alternatives to therapeutics; • foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations; • potential resource constraints, including with respect to patients’ ability to obtain reimbursement for our products in foreign markets; and • the interpretation of contractual provisions governed by foreign laws in the event of a contract dispute. Any of these factors could impair our ability to commercialize Attruby and Beyonttra and any future drugs we may develop or for which we obtain commercial rights outside the United States, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. 60 Table of Contents If we fail to comply with healthcare laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial conditions could be adversely affected. Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute pharmaceutical products. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of ownership, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. See the section titled, “ Business - Government Regulation - Other Regulatory Matters .” Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities, including compensation of physicians with stock or stock options, could, despite efforts to comply, be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Additionally, the FDA or foreign regulators may not agree that we have mitigated any risk of bias in our clinical trials due to payments or equity interests provided to investigators or institutions which could limit a regulator’s acceptance of those clinical trial data in support of a marketing application. Moreover, efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, integrity and oversight agreements to resolve allegations of non-compliance, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws. 61 Table of Contents Third party patient assistance programs that receive financial support from companies have become the subject of enhanced government and regulatory scrutiny. Government enforcement agencies have shown increased interest in pharmaceutical companies’ product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements. The U.S. government has established guidelines that suggest that it is lawful for pharmaceutical manufacturers to make donations to charitable organizations who provide co-pay assistance to Medicare patients, provided that such organizations, among other things, are bona fide charities, are entirely independent of and not controlled by the manufacturer, provide aid to applicants on a first-come basis according to consistent financial criteria and do not link aid to use of a donor’s product. However, donations to patient assistance programs have received some negative publicity and have been the subject of multiple government enforcement actions, related to allegations regarding their use to promote branded pharmaceutical products over other less costly alternatives. Specifically, in recent years, there have been multiple settlements resulting out of government claims challenging the legality of their patient assistance programs under a variety of federal and state laws. It is possible that we may make grants to independent charitable foundations that help financially needy patients with their premium, co-pay, and co-insurance obligations. If we choose to do so, and if we or our vendors or donation recipients are deemed to fail to comply with relevant laws, regulations or evolving government guidance in the operation of these programs, we could be subject to damages, fines, penalties, or other criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions or enforcement actions. We cannot ensure that our compliance controls, policies, and procedures will be sufficient to protect against acts of our employees, business partners, or vendors that may violate the laws or regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate. Regardless of whether we have complied with the law, a government investigation could impact our business practices, harm our reputation, divert the attention of management, increase our expenses, and reduce the availability of foundation support for our patients who need assistance. Further, it is possible that changes in insurer policies regarding co-pay coupons and/or the introduction and enactment of new legislation or regulatory action could restrict or otherwise negatively affect these patient support programs, which could result in fewer patients using affected products, and therefore could have a material adverse effect on our sales, business, and financial condition. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the current U.S. presidential administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the current U.S. presidential administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs. We cannot predict how the implementation of and any further changes to this rule will affect our business. Failure to comply with health and other personal data protection laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation and/or adverse publicity, and could negatively affect our operating results and business. We and any potential collaborators may be subject to federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security). In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, U.S. state consumer privacy laws (e.g., the California Consumer Privacy Act), and federal and state consumer protection laws (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 collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”). Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to civil, criminal, and administrative penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. In addition, as discussed further in the section titled, “ Business - Government Regulation – U.S. Data Collection, ” a number of U.S. states have passed or are considering comprehensive privacy laws that may impact our business. The uncertainty surrounding the implementation of recent and emerging state privacy laws, regulations and standards increases the risk to our business. Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business. 62 Table of Contents Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of any products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. See the section titled, “ Business - Government Regulation - Current and Future Legislation .” In addition, the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act (“CREATES Act”), was enacted in 2019 requiring sponsors of approved NDAs and BLAs to provide enough product samples on commercially reasonable, market-based terms to entities developing generic drugs and biosimilar biological products. The law establishes a private right of action allowing developers to sue application holders that refuse to sell them product samples needed to support their applications. If we are required to provide product samples or allocate additional resources to respond to such requests or any legal challenges under this law, our business could be adversely impacted. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates, if approved. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. For example, the current administration is pursuing a two-fold strategy to reduce drug costs in the United States. While it is unclear whether and how the current administration’s proposals will be implemented, these policies are likely to have a negative impact on the pharmaceutical industry and on our ability to receive adequate revenues for our products. The current administration has threatened to impose significant tariffs on pharmaceutical manufacturers that do not adopt pricing policies such as most-favored-nation pricing, which would tie the price for drugs in the United States to the lowest price in a group of other countries. While the United States has not implemented these tariffs, the United States could impose them with minimal notice to the public. In response, multiple manufacturers have entered into confidential pricing agreements with the federal government. On the other hand, the current administration is pursuing traditional regulatory pathways to impose drug pricing policies and published two proposed regulations in December 2025, referred to as GLOBE and GUARD. If finalized, these regulations would implement mandatory payment models under which manufacturers of eligible drugs would be required to pay rebates to the federal government on a portion of the units of their drugs that are reimbursed by Medicare, with the rebate amount based on most-favored-nation pricing. Imposing a rebate in the United States that is based on drug prices outside the United States would mark a drastic and unprecedented shift in the U.S. pharmaceutical market, and while the impact of the GLOBE and GUARD proposed regulations, if finalized, cannot yet be determined, it is likely to be significant depending on the final language. Even regulatory proposals or executive actions that are ultimately deemed unlawful could negatively impact the U.S. pharmaceutical sector and our business. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect: • the demand for Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates, if approved; • our ability to receive or set a price that we believe is fair for our future products; • our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability; • the amount of taxes that we are required to pay; and • the availability of capital. We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, lower reimbursement, and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize Attruby and our product candidates, if approved. 63 Table of Contents If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program or other governmental pricing programs, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, the 340B drug pricing program, and the VA’s FSS pricing program. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, we are required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available to the states for our drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data reported by us on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS, the federal agency that administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of innovator products, the best price for each drug which, in general, represents the lowest price available from the manufacturer to any entity in the United States in any pricing structure, calculated to include all sales and associated rebates, discounts and other price concessions. Our failure to comply with these price reporting and rebate payment obligations could negatively impact our financial results. The ACA made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. CMS issued a final regulation, which became effective on April 1, 2016, to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program under the ACA. The issuance of the final regulation has increased and will continue to increase our costs and the complexity of compliance, has been and will continue to be time-consuming to implement, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, particularly if CMS challenges the approach we take in our implementation of the final regulation. Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. 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 based on the average manufacturer price and Medicaid rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, and in general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. Any additional future changes to the definition of average manufacturer price and the Medicaid rebate amount under the ACA, other legislation, or in regulation could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact our results of operations. The Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), which administers the 340B program, issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities, which became effective on January 1, 2019. We also are required to report our 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis. Implementation of the civil monetary penalties regulation and the issuance of any other final regulations and guidance could affect our obligations under the 340B program in ways we cannot anticipate. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in the inpatient setting. Pricing and rebate calculations vary across products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. In the case of our Medicaid pricing data, if we become aware that our reporting for a prior quarter was incorrect, or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we are obligated to resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. Such restatements and recalculations increase our costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate program and could result in an overage or underage in our rebate liability for past quarters. Price recalculations also may affect the ceiling price at which we are required to offer our products under the 340B program or could require us to issue refunds to 340B covered entities. Significant civil monetary penalties can be applied if we are found to have knowingly submitted any false pricing information to CMS, or if we fail to submit the required price data on a timely basis. Such conduct also could be grounds for CMS to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs. Significant civil monetary penalties also can be applied if we are found to have knowingly and intentionally charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price. We cannot assure you that our submissions will not be found by CMS or HRSA to be incomplete or incorrect. 64 Table of Contents To be eligible to have our products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, as noted above, we participate in the VA’s FSS pricing program. As part of this program, we are obligated to make our products available for procurement on an FSS contract under which we must comply with standard government terms and conditions and charge a price that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price (“FCP”), to four federal agencies (the VA, U.S. Department of Defense, or DOD, Public Health Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard). The FCP is based on the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (“Non-FAMP”), which we calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. Pursuant to applicable law, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to significant penalties for each item of false information. These obligations also contain extensive disclosure and certification requirements. We also participate in the Tricare Retail Pharmacy program, under which we pay quarterly rebates on utilization of innovator products that are dispensed through the Tricare Retail Pharmacy network to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and FCP. We are required to list our covered products on a Tricare Agreement in order for these products to be eligible for DOD formulary inclusion. If we overcharge the government in connection with our FSS contract or Tricare Agreement, whether due to a misstated FCP or otherwise, we are required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges can result in allegations against us under the FCA and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and responding to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Federal legislative and regulatory efforts to implement reference pricing or most-favored-nation pricing models could impact our product revenues and materially harm our business. On May 12, 2025, the current administration issued an executive order calling on pharmaceutical manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the prices of medicines in the U.S. and directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to communicate most-favored-nation (MFN) price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to align prices with those in comparably developed nations and, in the event significant progress towards MFN pricing is not delivered, to propose rulemaking to impose MFN pricing. Since the May 12, 2025 order, the current administration has continued to exert pressure on drug manufacturers to implement MFN pricing, including by suggesting that the administration may impose significant tariffs on pharmaceuticals if such manufacturers do not reach agreements to implement MFN pricing. Further, in November 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) introduced the GENEROUS (GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid) Model, a voluntary Medicaid payment initiative under which participating drug manufacturers may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs that are intended to provide such Medicaid programs with an MFN price for the manufacturers’ products. Additionally, in December 2025, CMS announced proposals for new mandatory demonstration payment models through two proposed rules under its Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) authority, the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing (“GLOBE”) for Medicare Part B and Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (“GUARD”) for Medicare Part D. If finalized, these models would impose additional mandatory rebates on manufacturers of certain Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D drugs, for select Medicare populations intended to represent 25% of Medicare patients, if the Medicare prices for such products exceed those paid in economically comparable countries. Both the GLOBE and GUARD models have proposed seven-year testing periods, with the GLOBE model proposed to begin on October 1, 2026 and the GUARD model proposed to begin on January 1, 2027. If the GLOBE and GUARD models are finalized as proposed under CMMI authority, we could be required to pay additional rebates on products reimbursed by Medicare for the covered populations during the applicable model periods. In addition, if MFN pricing or similar reference pricing policies are enacted or implemented in the U.S. outside of the CMMI framework and applied more broadly, we could be required to pay rebates on products utilization by a broader portion of U.S. patients to align with prices in certain reference countries. We currently derive the substantial portion of our revenue from U.S. sales, and any requirement to pay additional rebates in the U.S. to match international reference prices would impact our overall net product revenue. 65 Table of Contents MFN pricing models in the U.S. could also affect our international pricing strategy and future decisions on reimbursement and commercialization in certain jurisdictions. If our U.S. pricing becomes tied to international reference prices, especially in light of our licensing agreements with Bayer and Alexion, we may face decisions regarding pricing in foreign markets that could result in reduced patient access internationally, affect our relationships with foreign regulatory authorities and payers, or impact our ability to obtain or maintain reimbursement approvals in ex-U.S. markets. These reforms remain subject to change, potential legal challenges, or expansion through additional rulemaking or sub regulatory guidance, creating uncertainty for our overall pricing strategy. It remains to be seen whether and how these drug pricing initiatives will apply to our products, how they will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry, and whether similar reform measures may be adopted in the future. Recent federal legislation and actions by state and local governments may permit reimportation of drugs from foreign countries into the United States, including foreign countries where the drugs are sold at lower prices than in the United States, which could materially adversely affect our operating results. We face competition in the United States for Attruby and may face competition for our product candidates if approved, from therapies sourced from foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. In the United States, the Medicare Modernization Act contains provisions that may change U.S. importation laws and expand pharmacists’ and wholesalers’ ability to import cheaper versions of an approved drug and competing products from Canada, where there are government price controls. The FDA also issued a final guidance document outlining a pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code (“NDC”) for an FDA-approved drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country. See the section titled, “ Business-Government Regulation-Current and Future Legislation ” for more information regarding legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. If certain of these changes are implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. The regulatory and market implications of the final rule and guidance are unknown at this time. Proponents of drug reimportation may attempt to pass legislation that would directly allow reimportation under certain circumstances. Legislation or regulations allowing the reimportation of drugs, if enacted, could decrease the price we receive for any products that we may develop and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability. We will continue to monitor developments and their potential effect on our business. We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve commercial success or regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize any product candidates we may develop and ultimately harm our financial condition. The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition for Attruby and Beyonttra and we may face competition with respect to any product candidates that we seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization. Our approved product faces competition from other products approved for the same indication, and there are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the development and commercialization of products for the treatment of the indications that some of our lead clinical-stage product candidates are pursuing. If any competitors for our product candidates receive FDA approval before we do, our product candidates would not be the first treatment on the market, and our market share may be limited. In addition to competition from other companies targeting our target indications, any products we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies. Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. 66 Table of Contents Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for treatment of our targeted disease indications or similar indications, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over our product candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours and may obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA for indications that we are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, products or technologies developed by our competitors may render our product candidates uneconomical or obsolete and we may not be successful in marketing those product candidates, once approved, against competitors. In addition, we could face litigation or other proceedings with respect to the scope, ownership, validity and/or enforceability of our patents relating to our competitors’ products and our competitors may allege that our products infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize. See the section titled, “ Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property .” If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Our ability to successfully identify patients and acquire a significant market share will be necessary for us to achieve profitability and growth. We focus research and product development on treatments for Mendelian diseases, many of which are rare or orphan indications. Our projections of both the number of individuals who are affected by our target disease indications and have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The effort to identify patients with diseases we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our products and product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our products or product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates under development in our key value driver programs, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability despite obtaining such significant market share. In addition, market share could be limited by the availability of other treatments. In particular, Attruby is not the first treatment on the market for ATTR-CM, and its market share and potential to generate revenues may be limited. Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates We may encounter substantial delays in clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct or complete clinical trials on the expected timelines, if at all. Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any of our ongoing and planned clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials are initiated or conducted on a timely basis, issues may arise that could result in the suspension or termination of such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our ongoing and future clinical trials may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include: • inability to generate sufficient preclinical, toxicology or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation or continuation of clinical trials; • delays in confirming target engagement, patient selection or other relevant biomarkers to be utilized in preclinical and clinical product candidate development; • delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory agencies as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials; 67 Table of Contents • delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical trial sites; • delays in identifying, recruiting and training suitable clinical investigators; • delays in obtaining required Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) approval at each clinical trial site; • imposition of a temporary or permanent clinical hold by regulatory agencies for a number of reasons, including after review of an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) or IND amendment, clinical trial application (“CTA”) or CTA amendment, or equivalent application or amendment; or as a result of a new safety finding that presents unreasonable risk to clinical trial participants or a negative finding from an inspection of our clinical trial operations or study sites; • developments in trials for other product candidates with the same targets or related modalities as our product candidates conducted by third parties that raise regulatory or safety concerns about risk to patients of the treatment, or if the FDA or other governmental authority finds that the investigational protocol or plan is clearly deficient to meet its stated objectives; • difficulties in securing access to materials for the comparator arm of certain of our clinical trials; • delays in identifying, recruiting and enrolling suitable patients to participate in clinical trials, and delays caused by patients withdrawing from clinical trials or failing to return for post-treatment follow-up; • difficulty collaborating with patient groups and investigators; • failure by CROs, other third parties or us to adhere to clinical trial requirements; • failure to perform in accordance with the FDA’s or any other regulatory authority’s current good clinical practices (“GCP”), requirements, or regulatory guidelines in other countries; • occurrence of AEs associated with the product candidate that are viewed to outweigh its potential benefits; • changes in regulatory requirements and guidance that require amending or submitting new clinical protocols; • changes in the standard of care on which a clinical development plan was based, which may require new or additional trials; • the cost of clinical trials of any product candidates that we may identify and pursue being greater than we anticipate; • clinical trials of any product candidates that we may identify and pursue producing negative or inconclusive results or failing to meet a specified endpoint, which may result in our deciding, or regulators requiring us, to conduct additional clinical trials or to abandon product development programs; • delays in clinical trial enrollment or clinical trial initiation resulting from any global health emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic; • transfer of manufacturing processes to larger-scale facilities operated by a CMO, or by us, and delays or failure by our CMOs or us to make any necessary changes to such manufacturing process; and • delays in manufacturing, testing, releasing, validating or importing/exporting sufficient stable quantities of product candidates that we may identify for use in clinical trials, or the inability to do any of the foregoing. Any inability to successfully initiate, conduct or complete clinical trials could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may be required to or we may elect to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials to bridge data obtained from our modified product candidates to data obtained from nonclinical and clinical research conducted using earlier versions of these product candidates. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which our product candidates have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations. 68 Table of Contents We could also encounter delays if an ongoing or planned clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the data safety monitoring board (“DSMB”), or by the FDA or other regulatory authority, or if the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted suspend or terminate the participation of their clinical investigators and sites subject to their review. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. We have in the past received, and may receive in the future, partial or full clinical hold notices from the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which have required, and may in the future require, us to conduct additional studies, generate additional data, amend our clinical trial protocols and/or delay or halt the initiation or continuation of our clinical trials. We may be required or may voluntarily determine to place one or more of our product candidates on clinical hold in the future for various reasons, which could delay or otherwise impair our clinical development efforts and ability to obtain regulatory approval for any such product candidate. Additionally, the FDA may determine, upon review of an IND submission, that we have not provided sufficient information needed to assess the risks to subjects of the proposed studies, or that our IND submission is otherwise insufficient to support initiation of a clinical trial. There is no guarantee that the FDA will agree that our responses are sufficient, and we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or manufacturing steps before the FDA allows our proposed clinical trials to proceed. Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates. Delays in the initiation, conduct or completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down the product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue from such product candidates, if approved. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In the event we identify any additional product candidates to pursue, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND or a CTA will result in the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. 69 Table of Contents Results of earlier studies or clinical trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results, and initial studies or clinical trials may not establish an adequate safety or efficacy profile for our product candidates to justify proceeding to advanced clinical trials or an application for regulatory approval. The results of nonclinical and preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. In addition, for certain of our product candidates that we acquired, we did not undertake the preclinical studies and clinical trials ourselves. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials in one set of patients or disease indications, or from preclinical studies or clinical trials that we did not lead, may not be predictive of those obtained in another. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to various interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, despite promising results in earlier studies, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if early-stage clinical trials are successful, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials of our product candidates in additional patient populations or under different treatment conditions before we are able to seek approvals from the FDA and regulatory authorities outside the United States to market and sell these product candidates. Our failure to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates for commercially viable indications, or at all, would substantially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, some clinical trials of our product candidates performed to date were designed as open-label studies and were conducted at a limited number of clinical sites on a limited number of patients. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Moreover, patients selected for early clinical trials often include the most severe sufferers and their symptoms may have been bound to improve notwithstanding the new treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. We may encounter difficulties enrolling patients in clinical trials, and clinical development activities could thereby be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. The indications for which we plan to evaluate our current product candidates each represent a rare disease or condition with limited patient populations from which to draw participants in clinical trials. Due to our focus on the development of product candidates for the treatment of Mendelian diseases, many of which are rare conditions, we may not be able to identify and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics and criteria, in a timely manner. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including: • the size and nature of a patient population; • the patient eligibility criteria defined in the applicable clinical trial protocols, which may limit the patient populations eligible for clinical trials to a greater extent than competing clinical trials for the same indication; • the size of the study population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints; • the severity of the disease under investigation; • the proximity of patients to a trial site; • the design of the trial; • the ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience; 70 Table of Contents • the approval or concurrent enrollment of clinical trials involving competing product candidates currently under development for Mendelian diseases, or competing clinical trials for similar therapies or targeting patient populations meeting our patient eligibility criteria; • clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages and side effects of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies and product candidates; • the ability to obtain and maintain patient consents; and • the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will not complete such trials for any reason. If we have difficulty enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to conduct clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, either of which would have an adverse effect on our business. Use of our product candidates could be associated with side effects, adverse events or other properties or safety risks, which could delay or halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, abandon a product or product candidate, limit the commercial potential of a product candidate, if approved, or result in other significant negative consequences that could harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and AEs, associated with use of our product candidates. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials, and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The drug-related side effects of our product candidates could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Moreover, if our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may elect to abandon their development or limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, which may limit the commercial expectations for the product candidate if approved. We may also be required to modify or terminate our study plans based on findings in our preclinical studies or clinical trials. AEs that we may observe in our ongoing and future preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates could require us to delay, modify or abandon our development plans for the affected product candidate or other product candidates that share properties of the affected product candidate. Many product candidates that initially show promise in early-stage testing may later be found to cause side effects that prevent further development. As we work to advance existing product candidates and to identify new product candidates, we cannot be certain that later testing or trials of product candidates that initially showed promise in early testing will not be found to cause similar or different unacceptable side effects that prevent their further development. It is possible that as we test our product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical trials, or as the use of our product candidates, if they receive regulatory approval, becomes more widespread, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other AEs that were observed in earlier trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, will be reported by subjects. If such side effects become known later in development or upon approval, such findings may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Additionally, adverse developments in clinical trials of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory oversight bodies to suspend or terminate our clinical trials, to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. In addition to side effects caused by a product candidate, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. If any such AEs occur, our clinical trials of a product candidate could be suspended or terminated. If we are unable to demonstrate that any AEs were caused by the administration process or related procedures, the FDA, the European Commission, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, a product candidate for any or all targeted indications. Even if we can demonstrate that all future SAEs are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment, or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to not initiate, delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. 71 Table of Contents Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the FDA could impose a boxed warning in the labeling of our product and could require us to adopt a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”), and could apply elements to assure safe use to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a Medication Guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates once approved, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: • regulatory authorities may suspend or withdraw approvals of such product or product candidate; • regulatory authorities may require additional warnings or statements on the label; • regulatory authorities may refuse to approve label expansion for additional indications of such product or product candidate; • we may be required by the FDA to implement a REMS; • we may be required to change the way a product or product candidate is distributed, administered or conduct additional clinical trials; • we may be subject to regulatory investigations and enforcement actions; • we may decide to remove such product or product candidate from the marketplace; • we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; and • our reputation may suffer. Any of these occurrences could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product or product candidate, if approved, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Certain of our product candidates are under development for the treatment of patient populations with significant comorbidities that may result in deaths or serious adverse or unacceptable side effects and require us to abandon or limit our clinical development activities. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical trials may result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to underlying disease or to other therapies or medications that such patients may receive. Any of these events could prevent us from advancing our product candidates through clinical development, and from obtaining regulatory approval, and would impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates. Any inability to advance our product candidates through clinical development may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Preliminary, interim or topline data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available or as additional analyses are conducted, and as the data are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. From time to time, we have and may in the future publish or report preliminary, interim or topline data from our clinical trials, such as the release of our topline results for our Phase 3 study of encaleret in autosomal dominant hypocalcemia type 1. Preliminary, interim or topline data from clinical trials may not be indicative of the final results of the trial and are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and/or more patient data become available. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trial, and favorable data from interim analysis do not ensure the final results of a trial will be favorable. Preliminary, interim or topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary, interim or topline data we previously published. As a result, preliminary, interim or topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes between preliminary, interim or topline data and final data could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. 72 Table of Contents Risks Related to Regulatory Review and Approval of our Product Candidates Although we have obtained marketing authorization for Attruby, we have multiple product candidates in our development pipeline that are still in preclinical or clinical development, which is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes and the potential for substantial delays. We cannot give any assurance that any of our pipeline product candidates will receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. We cannot be certain that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Our inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us and negatively impact our ability to generate revenue. Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and then successfully commercialize product candidates. Our product candidates require additional development; management of preclinical, clinical and manufacturing activities; and regulatory approval. In addition, we will need to obtain adequate manufacturing supply; complete the build-out of a commercial organization; commence product candidate-specific marketing efforts; and obtain reimbursement before we generate any significant revenue from commercial product sales from such product candidates, if ever. Some of our product candidates are in early-stage research or translational phases of development, and the risk of failure for these programs is high. We cannot be certain that our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we are not able to successfully commercialize an approved drug or if we do not receive additional regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we and our subsidiaries may not be able to continue operations, which may result in us winding down and dissolving the subsidiary, selling or out-licensing the technology or pursuing an alternative strategy. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions for any product candidates that we may identify and develop, our business will be substantially harmed. We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors, including substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of nonclinical or clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision to overturn prior established case law giving deference to regulatory agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutory language has introduced uncertainty regarding the extent to which the FDA’s regulations, policies and decisions may become subject to increasing legal challenges, delays, and/or changes. It is possible that our current product candidates and any other product candidates which we may seek to develop in the future will not ever obtain regulatory approval. Although Attruby and Beyonttra received regulatory approval for commercial sale in the United States, EU, UK and Japan, we cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or if approved, will be successfully commercialized. Obtaining marketing approval is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process, and regulatory authorities may delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including, but not limited to: • the inability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that the applicable product candidate is safe and effective as a treatment for our targeted indications; • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design, endpoints or implementation of our clinical trials; • the population studied in the clinical program may not be sufficiently broad or representative to assure safety or efficacy in the full population for which we seek approval; • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we currently anticipate; • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from nonclinical studies or clinical trials; • the data collected from clinical trials of product candidates that we may identify and pursue may not be sufficient to support the submission of a new drug application (“NDA”) biologics license application (“BLA”), or other submission for regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere; 73 Table of Contents • we may be unable to demonstrate to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate’s risk-benefit ratio for its proposed indication is acceptable; • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may identify deficiencies in the manufacturing processes, test procedures and specifications, or facilities of third party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may change in a manner that renders the clinical trial design or data insufficient for approval. In addition, even if an NDA, BLA, or other submission for regulatory approval, is filed and accepted for review, the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities may delay their review or approval process or may decline to grant regulatory approval for a variety of reasons. The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials and evolving regulatory requirements, may result in our failure to obtain regulatory approval to market product candidates that we may pursue in the United States or elsewhere, which would significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of product candidates that we may identify and pursue for their intended uses, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive nonclinical studies, preclinical studies and clinical trials that the applicable product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication, and in the case of our product candidates regulated as biological products, that the product candidate is safe, pure, and potent for use in its targeted indication. Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical development process. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support future marketing approvals. We cannot be certain that our current clinical trials or any other future clinical trials will be successful. Additionally, any safety concerns observed in any one of our clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates in those and other indications, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. Success in clinical trials in a particular indication does not ensure that a product candidate will be successful in other indications. Similarly, approval of a product candidate in a particular indication does not ensure that that the product candidate will be successful in other indications. Moreover, results acceptable to support approval in one jurisdiction may be deemed inadequate by another regulatory authority to support regulatory approval in that other jurisdiction. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for a product candidate, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of the specific product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential. 74 Table of Contents We conduct clinical trials for product candidates outside the United States, and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials. We have conducted and plan to conduct clinical trials outside the United States, including in Europe. The acceptance by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such as inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction, and the FDA has discussed proposals to increase user fees for marketing applications containing certain foreign clinical data. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction. Even if we obtain FDA approval for any of our current pipeline product candidates in the United States, we may never obtain approval to commercialize any of these product candidates outside of the United States, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential. In order to market any products outside of the United States, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and effectiveness. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional or different administrative review periods from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products, once approved is also subject to approval. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and costs and require additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in those countries. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. While we previously had two products approved for sale in the United States, we do not have any product candidates approved for sale in international markets, and we have only limited experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approval in international markets is delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of any approved products will be harmed. Even though we may apply for orphan drug designation for our product candidates, we may not be able to obtain such designations or maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including orphan drug market exclusivity. Our business strategy focuses on the development of product candidates for the treatment of genetic diseases, which may be eligible for FDA or European Commission orphan drug designation. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and European Union, may designate drugs or biologics for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. Even if one of our product candidates receives orphan exclusivity, the FDA can still approve other drugs or biologics for use in treating the same indication or disease or the same biologic for a different indication or disease during the exclusivity period. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of our product or orphan drug exclusivity can be overcome if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our product. See the section titled, “ Business — Government Regulation — Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity .” 75 Table of Contents We have obtained from the FDA orphan drug designations, including for: Attruby for the treatment of transthyretin amyloidosis; low-dose infigratinib for the treatment of achondroplasia; encaleret for the treatment of autosomal dominant hypocalcemia (including ADH type 1 and ADH type 2); and BBP-812 for the treatment of Canavan Disease. We have obtained from the European Commission, orphan medicinal product designation for: acoramidis for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis; low-dose infigratinib for the treatment of achondroplasia; BBP-418 for the treatment of limb-girdle muscular dystrophy; BBP-812 for the treatment of Canavan Disease; and encaleret as a treatment for hypoparathyroidism (inclusive of ADH1). We may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective, if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products. In addition, although we may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations. Any failure to obtain, maintain or otherwise recognize the benefits of orphan drug designation for our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our prospects. On February 3, 2026, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026. The RARE Act codified the FDA’s longstanding regulatory interpretation that orphan drug exclusivity applies only to the specific approved use or indication of a drug or biological product, rather than to all uses within a designated rare disease or condition. The FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted. The FDA has granted rare pediatric disease designation to BBP-418 for the treatment of LGMD2I, BBP-812 for the treatment of Canavan Disease and infigratinib for the treatment of achondroplasia. However, a marketing application for these products that have been granted this designation or any other product candidate, if approved, may not meet the eligibility criteria for a PRV. The FDA has granted rare pediatric disease designation to BBP-418 for the treatment of LGMD2I, BBP-812 for the treatment of Canavan Disease and infigratinib for the treatment of achondroplasia. Designation of a drug as a drug for a rare pediatric disease does not guarantee that an NDA for such drug will meet the eligibility criteria for a rare pediatric disease PRV at the time the application is approved. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), we will need to request a rare pediatric disease PRV, in our original NDA for these designated products. Vouchers for rare pediatric disease drugs are awarded for qualifying applications when the drug receives approval. The FDA may determine that an NDA for these product candidates, if approved, does not meet the eligibility criteria for a PRV, including for the following reasons: • achondroplasia, LGMD2I or Canavan Disease no longer meets the definition of a rare pediatric disease; • the NDA contains an active ingredient (including any ester or salt of the active ingredient) that has been previously approved in an NDA; • the NDA is not deemed eligible for priority review; • the NDA does not rely on clinical data derived from studies examining a pediatric population and dosages of the drug intended for that population (that is, if the NDA does not contain sufficient clinical data to allow for adequate labeling for use by the full range of affected pediatric patients); or • the NDA is approved for a different adult indication than the rare pediatric disease for which the product is designated (for example, if BBP-418 is approved for an indication based on specific genetic alterations that would be inclusive of, but not limited to, BBP-418). The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 reauthorized the FDA’s authority to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of new products intended to treat rare pediatric diseases through September 30, 2029. Under current law, after September 30, 2029, the FDA may not award any rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers, although the FDA’s authority to do so could be extended by Congress in the future. 76 Table of Contents Accelerated approval by the FDA, even if granted for any of our product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval. We may seek approval of our product candidates using the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. This pathway may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition, generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies, and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing confirmatory clinical trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that a post-approval confirmatory trial or trials be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after the date accelerated approval was granted. FDORA also requires sponsors to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. Furthermore, under FDORA, the FDA is empowered to take action, such as issuing fines, against companies that fail to conduct with due diligence any post-approval confirmatory trial or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress. In addition, for products under consideration for accelerated approval, the FDA currently requires, unless otherwise requested by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials prior to dissemination or publication, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Thus, even if we seek to utilize the accelerated approval pathway, we may not be able to obtain accelerated approval and, even if we do, we may not experience a faster development, regulatory review or approval process for that product. In addition, receiving accelerated approval does not assure that the product’s accelerated approval will eventually be converted to a traditional approval. We may not elect or be able to take advantage of any expedited development or regulatory review and approval processes available to product candidates granted breakthrough therapy, fast track or regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation by the FDA. We intend to evaluate and continue ongoing discussions with the FDA on regulatory strategies that could enable us to take advantage of expedited development pathways for certain of our product candidates, although we cannot be certain that our product candidates will qualify for any expedited development pathways or that regulatory authorities will grant, or allow us to maintain, the relevant qualifying designations. Potential expedited development pathways that we could pursue include breakthrough therapy, fast track designation and/or regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”). Breakthrough therapy designation is intended to expedite the development and review of product candidates that are designed to treat serious or life-threatening diseases when “preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development.” The designation of a product candidate as a breakthrough therapy provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with the FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support approval; more frequent written correspondence from the FDA about matters such as the design of the proposed clinical trials and use of biomarkers; intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program, beginning as early as Phase 1; organizational commitment involving senior managers; and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Fast track designation is designed for product candidates intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, where nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for this disease or condition. We may also seek RMAT designation for one or more of our product candidates. See the section titled, “ Business — Government Regulation — Expedited Development and Review Programs ” for additional information regarding RMAT designation. Although some of our product candidates, including the following, were granted fast track designation by the FDA, we may elect not to pursue any of breakthrough therapy, fast track or RMAT designations for our other product candidates, and the FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant these designations: • BBP-418 for the treatment of LGMD2I, • encaleret for the treatment of ADH1, and • BBP-812 for the treatment of Canavan Disease. 77 Table of Contents Even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for breakthrough therapy, fast track designation or RMAT, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Breakthrough therapy designation, fast track and RMAT designation do not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation or eligibility will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the breakthrough therapy, fast track or RMAT designation. Thus, even if we do receive breakthrough therapy, fast track or RMAT designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw breakthrough therapy, fast track or RMAT designation if it believes that the product no longer meets the qualifying criteria. Our business may be harmed if we are unable to avail ourselves of these or any other expedited development and regulatory pathways. Additionally, certain oncology product candidates may be eligible for review under the Real-Time Oncology Review (“RTOR”), which is an initiative of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence designed to expedite the delivery of safe and effective cancer treatments to patients. Although this program allows the FDA to review data earlier, before an applicant formally submits a complete application, acceptance into the RTOR pilot does not guarantee or influence approvability of the application, which is subject to the usual benefit-risk evaluation by FDA reviewers, and it does not affect the FDA’s Prescription Drug User Fee Act timelines. Although early approvals have occurred with applications selected for RTOR, this may not be the case for our application even if it is selected for RTOR. If at any time the FDA determines our participation in RTOR, if selected, is no longer appropriate, the FDA may rescind our acceptance and instruct us to follow routine submission procedures for marketing approval. If we are unable to successfully validate, develop and obtain regulatory approval for companion diagnostic tests for our drug candidates that require or would commercially benefit from such tests, or experience significant delays in doing so, we may not realize the full commercial potential of these product candidates. In connection with the clinical development of our product candidates for certain indications, we may work with collaborators to develop or obtain access to in vitro companion diagnostic tests to identify patient subsets within a disease category who may derive selective and meaningful benefit from our drug candidates. Such companion diagnostics would be used during our clinical trials as well as in connection with the commercialization of our product candidates. To be successful, we or our collaborators will need to address a number of scientific, technical, regulatory and logistical challenges. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities regulate in vitro companion diagnostics as medical devices and, under that regulatory framework, will likely require the conduct of clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of any diagnostics we may develop, which we expect will require separate regulatory clearance or approval prior to commercialization. We may rely on third parties for the design, development and manufacture of companion diagnostic tests for our therapeutic product candidates that may require such tests. If we enter into such collaborative agreements, we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our future collaborators in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. It may be necessary to resolve issues such as selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation of companion diagnostics during the development and regulatory approval processes. Moreover, even if data from preclinical studies and early clinical trials appear to support development of a companion diagnostic for a product candidate, data generated in later clinical trials may fail to support the analytical and clinical validation of the companion diagnostic. We and our future collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing and commercializing companion diagnostics similar to those we face with respect to our therapeutic candidates and therapeutics themselves, including issues with achieving regulatory clearance or approval, production of sufficient quantities at commercial scale and with appropriate quality standards, and in gaining market acceptance. If we are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for these therapeutic product candidates, or experience delays in doing so, the development of these therapeutic product candidates may be adversely affected, these therapeutic product candidates may not obtain marketing approval, and we may not realize the full commercial potential of any of these therapeutics that have or may obtain marketing approval. As a result, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially harmed. In addition, a diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic test that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of our product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the development or commercialization of our therapeutic candidates. 78 Table of Contents If approved, our investigational products regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”), includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the other company’s product. We believe that any of our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our investigational medicines to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once licensed, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing any of our product candidates, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, which would impair our ability to successfully commercialize and generate revenues from sales of such products. Attruby and Beyonttra and our current product candidates, if approved, will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates. Attruby and Beyonttra and our current product candidates, if approved, will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements and review by the FDA and other applicable regulatory authorities for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies, and submission of safety, efficacy, and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive requirements imposed by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”), regulations. As such, we and our CMOs will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any NDA, BLA or marketing authorization application (“MAA”). Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. Furthermore, under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, for certain commercial prescription drug products, manufacturers and other parties involved in the supply chain must also meet chain of distribution requirements and build electronic, interoperable systems for product tracking and tracing and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products or other products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products, including samples, is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”), which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Prescription drug products must also meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. If we are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we could have the marketing approvals for any approved products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our ability to market such products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability and we could be subject to substantial penalties. As a result, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition. 79 Table of Contents Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates, are or will be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed and promoted or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. We will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Any new legislation addressing drug safety issues could result in delays in product development or commercialization, or increased costs to assure compliance. Additionally, under FDORA, sponsors of approved drugs and biologics must provide six months’ notice to the FDA of any changes in marketing status, such as the withdrawal of a drug, and failure to do so could result in the FDA issuing a publicly available non-compliance letter to the sponsor. The holder of an approved NDA, BLA or MAA must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling, or manufacturing process. We could also be asked to conduct post-marketing clinical trials to verify the safety and efficacy of our products, if approved in general or in specific patient subsets. If original marketing approval was obtained via the accelerated approval pathway, we could be required to conduct a successful post-marketing clinical trial to confirm clinical benefit for those products. If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, such regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency or enforcement authority may, among other things: • issue warning or untitled letters that would result in adverse publicity; • impose civil or criminal penalties; • suspend or withdraw regulatory approvals; • suspend any of our ongoing clinical trials; • refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications submitted by us; • impose restrictions on our operations, including closing our CMOs’ facilities; • impose restrictions on the labeling of products; • impose restrictions on product distribution or use, such as a REMS; • seize or detain products; or • require a product recall. Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response, and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our products. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, our operating results will be adversely affected and our stock price may decline. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates or suspend, withdraw or modify regulatory approval of our products. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations governing the promotion of prescription products, including those prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. The FDA and other governmental and regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, strictly regulate and closely monitor the post-approval marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. While the FDA permits the dissemination of truthful and non-misleading information about an approved product, a sponsor may not promote a product unlawfully or for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we are found to have promoted our products unlawfully or for such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of products, including for off-label use, and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct must be changed or curtailed. 80 Table of Contents In September 2025, the FDA announced increased scrutiny of advertising and promotional practices, with a particular focus on direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) advertising and reportedly sent thousands of letters to pharmaceutical companies to remove misleading ads, including a large number of untitled and warning letters citing allegedly misleading claims. For example, we received one of these untitled letters citing a DTC broadcast advertisement for Attruby. This heightened enforcement environment increases the risk that our promotional materials, even if we believe them to be compliant, could be challenged by the FDA or by consumers or plaintiffs’ counsel, which could lead us to modify or withdraw certain promotional materials. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our products or product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition. Notwithstanding regulations related to product promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific exchange concerning their products. We intend to engage in medical education activities and communicate with healthcare providers in compliance with all applicable laws and regulatory guidance. Existing regulatory policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which gives deference to regulatory agencies’ statutory interpretations in litigation against federal government agencies, such as the FDA, where the law is ambiguous. This decision may result in more lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies of the FDA, which could undermine the FDA’s authority, lead to uncertainties in the industry, and disrupt the FDA’s normal operations, any of which could delay the FDA’s review of our regulatory submissions. We cannot predict the full impact of this decision, future judicial challenges brought against the FDA, or the nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties We rely entirely on third parties for the manufacturing of commercial supplies of Attruby and Beyonttra and for supplies of our product candidates that we may develop. Our business could be harmed if those third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of drug product, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices. We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture Attruby and Beyonttra on a commercial scale or to manufacture drug supplies of our product candidates for our ongoing clinical trials or any future clinical trials that we may conduct, and we lack the resources to manufacture our product candidates, if approved, on a commercial scale. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party manufacturers for the manufacturing of commercial supplies of Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates, if approved. We also rely on third-party manufacturers for the clinical manufacturing supply of our product candidates. Although we have entered into long-term supply arrangements and generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the trial, any significant delay or discontinuity in the supply of a commercial product, product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for continued commercial sales or for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay or curtail commercial sales of a product or the clinical development and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates, which could harm our business and results of operations. We may be unable to identify and appropriately qualify third-party manufacturers or establish agreements with third-party manufacturers or do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including: • reliance on the third party for sourcing of raw materials, components, and such other goods as may be required for execution of its manufacturing processes and the oversight by the third party of its suppliers; • reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance for the manufacturing activities each performs; • the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party; • the possible misappropriation of proprietary information, including trade secrets and know-how; and • the possible termination or non-renewal of the agreement by the third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. 81 Table of Contents Furthermore, all of our CMOs are engaged with other companies to supply and/or manufacture materials or products for such companies, which exposes our manufacturers to regulatory risks to produce such materials and products. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our products and product candidates are subject to review by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA or BLA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements, known as cGMP, requirements for manufacture of drug and biologic products. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, we will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for our product candidates manufactured at these manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory agency does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if any agency withdraws its approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would negatively impact the ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market, if approved, our product candidates. On March 27, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States passed into law the CARES Act, which enhanced the FDA’s authority with respect to drug shortage measures. Under the CARES Act, we must have in place a risk management plan that identifies and evaluates the risks to the supply of approved drugs for certain serious diseases or conditions for each establishment where the drug or active pharmaceutical ingredient is manufactured. The risk management plan will be subject to FDA review during an inspection. If we experience shortages in the supply of Attruby or any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval, our results could be materially impacted. Our products and product candidates may compete with other marketed drugs and product candidates and marketed drugs for access to manufacturing facilities. In addition, any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development, marketing approval or commercialization. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacturing of our products and product candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any product candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis. The drug substance and drug product for certain of our product candidates are currently acquired from single-source suppliers. The loss of these suppliers, or their failure to supply us with the drug substance or drug product, could materially and adversely affect our business. The drug substance and drug product for certain of our product candidates are manufactured by single-source suppliers or CMOs pursuant to development and manufacturing contracts, quality agreements and purchase orders. We do not currently have any other suppliers for the drug substance or drug product for these product candidates and, although we believe that there are alternate sources of supply that could satisfy our clinical requirements and are in the process of establishing agreements with alternate suppliers, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in identifying alternate sources and establishing relationships with such sources, or that we will be able to avoid significant delays or disruptions in the development of our product candidates due to our current reliance on single-source suppliers. Our dependence on single-source suppliers exposes us to certain risks, including the following: • our suppliers may cease, delay or reduce production or deliveries, raise prices or renegotiate terms; • delays caused by supply issues may harm our reputation; and • our ability to initiate and conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, and otherwise progress our business could be materially and adversely impacted if our single-source suppliers upon which we rely were to experience any significant business challenges, disruption or failures due to issues such as financial difficulties or bankruptcy, issues relating to regulatory or quality compliance, or other legal or reputational issues. Additionally, we may not be able to enter into or maintain supply arrangements with alternative suppliers on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. A delay in the supply of our commercial products to the market or development of our product candidates, or having to enter into a new agreement with a different third party on less favorable terms than we have with our current suppliers could increase our expenses, impair our ability to generate revenues and have a material adverse impact on our business. The drug product for Attruby and Beyonttra is currently supplied by one primary supplier. Although we have entered into a master agreement with an alternative supplier of drug product for this commercial product and expect the initial commercial batch of this material to be released to us later this year from this secondary supplier, we may encounter unexpected delays in the manufacture and supply of commercial drug product. 82 Table of Contents If the contract manufacturing facilities on which we rely do not continue to meet regulatory requirements or are unable to meet our supply demands, our business will be harmed. All entities involved in the preparation of products for commercial sale or product candidates for clinical trials, including our existing CMOs for Attruby and Beyonttra and all of our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP, or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures, including recordkeeping, and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates. Our failure, or the failure of third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, suspension of production, seizures or recalls of product candidates or marketed drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect clinical or commercial supplies of our product candidates. We or our CMOs must supply all necessary documentation in support of an NDA, BLA or MAA on a timely basis, and must adhere to regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies through their facilities inspection program. Some of our CMOs have never produced a commercially approved pharmaceutical product and therefore have not obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals to do so. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates or any of our other potential products. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or our other potential products or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we oversee the CMOs, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our CMO partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of the applicable product candidates may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, if ever. The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third party to implement, and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business. Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through an NDA, BLA supplement or MAA variation, or equivalent foreign regulatory filing, which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original CMO and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to change CMOs for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new CMO maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product or product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to or approved by the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new CMO could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or once approved, to commercialize those product candidates in a timely manner or within budget. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies, which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials. Accordingly, switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines. These factors could cause us to incur higher costs and could cause the delay or termination of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals, or commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue. 83 Table of Contents Collaborative relationships with third parties could cause us to expend significant resources and incur substantial business risk with no assurance of financial return. We anticipate relying upon strategic collaborations for marketing and commercializing our existing product candidates. For example, Eidos is party to an exclusive license agreement with Bayer to develop and commercialize Beyonttra as a treatment for ATTR-CM in the European Union and all member states of the European Patent Organization; Eidos is also a party to a license agreement with Alexion Pharma International Operations Limited Company (“Alexion”) pursuant to which we depend on Alexion for the commercialization of Beyonttra in Japan; QED is party to an exclusive license with Kyowa Kirin to develop, manufacture, and commercialize infigratinib for achondroplasia, hypochondroplasia, and other skeletal dysplasias in Japan. In addition, we may rely even more on strategic collaborations for R&D of other product candidates, and we may sell or license other product offerings through strategic partnerships with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. If we enter into R&D collaborations during the early phases of product development, success will in part depend on the performance of research collaborators. We will not directly control the amount or timing of resources devoted by research collaborators to activities related to product candidates. Research collaborators may not commit sufficient resources to our R&D programs. If any research collaborator fails to commit sufficient resources, the preclinical or clinical development programs related to the collaboration could be delayed or terminated. Also, collaborators may pursue existing or other development-stage products or alternative technologies in preference to those being developed in collaboration with us. Finally, if we fail to make required milestone or royalty payments to collaborators or to observe other obligations in agreements with them, the collaborators may have the right to terminate or stop performance of those agreements. Establishing strategic collaborations is difficult and time-consuming. Our discussions with potential collaborators may not lead to the establishment of collaborations on favorable terms, if at all. Potential collaborators may reject collaborations based upon their assessment of our financial, regulatory or intellectual property position. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Even if we successfully establish collaborations, these relationships may never result in the successful development or commercialization of product candidates or the generation of sales revenue. To the extent that we enter into collaborative arrangements, the related product revenues are likely to be lower than if we directly marketed and sold such products. Such collaborators may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for any future product candidate. Management of our relationships with collaborators will require: • significant time and effort from our management team; • coordination of our marketing and R&D programs with the marketing and R&D priorities of our collaborators; and • effective allocation of our resources to multiple projects. If we are unable to establish or maintain such strategic collaborations on terms favorable to us in the future, our R&D efforts and potential to generate revenue may be limited. We are parties to and may seek to enter into additional collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements, and may not be successful in maintaining existing arrangements or entering into new ones, and even if we are, we may not realize the benefits of such relationships. We depend upon third-party collaboration partners for financial and human resources for the commercialization of Attruby and Beyonttra in certain territories outside the United States and may enter into additional collaborations, licenses and similar arrangements for the clinical development and com