Item 1. Business
Item 1. Business
Overview
BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. (“BTI,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our”) is a biopharmaceutical company utilizing artificial intelligence (“AI”) to develop transformative medicines in neuroscience and, through the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, OnkosXcel Therapeutics LLC (“OnkosXcel”), immuno-oncology. We are focused on utilizing cutting-edge technology and innovative research to develop high-value therapeutics aimed at transforming patients’ lives. We employ various AI platforms to reduce therapeutic development costs and potentially accelerate development timelines. Our approach leverages existing approved drugs and/or clinically evaluated product candidates together with big data and proprietary machine learning algorithms to identify new therapeutic indications. We believe this differentiated approach has the potential to reduce the expense and time associated with drug development in diseases with substantial unmet medical needs.
On April 6, 2022, we announced that the United States (“U.S.”) Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved IGALMI TM (dexmedetomidine (or “Dex”)) sublingual film for the acute treatment of agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar I or II disorder in adults. IGALMI TM is approved to be self-administrated by patients under the supervision of a health care provider. On July 6, 2022, we announced that IGALMI TM was commercially available in doses of 120 and 180 microgram (“mcg”).
Our most advanced neuroscience candidate is BXCL501. In indications other than those approved by the FDA as IGALMI TM , BXCL501 is an investigational, proprietary, orally dissolving film formulation of Dex in development for the treatment of agitation associated with psychiatric and neurological disorders.
We are continuing to develop BXCL501 for the potential acute treatment of agitation associated with bipolar disorders or schizophrenia in the at-home setting and for the potential acute treatment of agitation (non-daily) associated with dementia due to probable Alzheimer’s disease in the at-home setting and in care facilities. As described further below, we have deprioritized the development of BXCL501 for certain other proposed indications, including development of BXCL501 as a potential adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (“MDD”), as well as our BXCL701 program, except as noted under “Immuno-Oncology” below.
Our most advanced immuno-oncology candidate, BXCL701, is an investigational oral innate immune activator being developed by OnkosXcel as a potential therapy for the treatment of aggressive forms of prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and other solid and liquid tumors.
Neuroscience
Our Neuroscience Strategy
Our goal is to become the leading AI-enabled neuroscience therapeutics company. We continue to evaluate all strategic options for our neuroscience assets, which could include licensing, partnering, and co-commercialization.
Our Novel Drug Re-Innovation Approach
We aim to deploy and implement, throughout the drug development process, an AI ecosystem designed to rapidly identify medications related to our key focus areas of neuroscience and immuno-oncology. Our in-house, uniquely integrated AI-to-drug-development capability is complemented by the services and technology of BioXcel LLC, our former parent company. It includes a labeled properties graph (also referred to as a “knowledge graph”) that visually relates collected big data in the form of entities and their properties that include neuropsychiatric symptoms, brain circuits, drug targets, and existing drugs. We believe that understanding the relation between entities relevant to drug development may lead to novel potential uses for existing drugs. Predictive algorithms or queries of the knowledge graph may uncover not only single drugs but potentially identify new combinations of drugs that we believe may be
8
Table of Contents
more effective in treating disorders than single agents. New combinations of drugs may lower tolerable doses of drugs and provide the basis for stronger intellectual property positions. Our AI team works closely with our Business Development team to prioritize in a data-driven manner the most valuable external opportunities. These opportunities may be found in new potential uses for launched drugs, in drugs that are part of pharmaceutical company pipelines no longer being pursued, or within academic efforts to develop new drug candidates.
Traditional drug development is marred by low success rates, long drug development cycles, and exorbitant development costs that are increasing year over year. In addition, many serious diseases remain unaddressed due to limitations of the current drug discovery paradigm. The pharmacological universe spans more than 27,000 active pharmaceutical agents, of which only approximately 4,000 are approved and marketed. Marketed drugs may not be exclusively effective in the indication for which they are approved but relevant to other indications, including rare diseases, and thus represent an untapped potential for addressing unmet medical needs and recouping research and development costs. Many of the remaining agents are active clinical candidates that are shelved or have failed for reasons other than toxicity, which offers the opportunity to re-innovate for other indications or patient segments. Such agents potentially represent an unrealized investment of billions of research and development dollars by the private and public sectors, while failing to remediate immeasurable patient suffering and sacrifice during clinical development. Also, these compounds may have known pharmaco-dynamic and pharmaco-kinetic properties, potentially allowing for a more data-driven selection of appropriate doses for development programs. Finally, with respect to neuropsychiatric indications, we prioritize those compounds with structural design features that we believe may contribute to high blood-brain barrier permeability, and therefore could increase the likelihood of compound penetration into the brain. Lack of brain penetration is a common cause for failure of many drugs developed for neuropsychiatric indications. In addition, we are prioritizing compounds with available human safety data, acceptable pharmacokinetic results, and data that support a high probability of achieving reasonable brain concentrations after dosing. The compounds in our pipeline have been identified using this proprietary platform.
This drug re-innovation model has been exemplified by the successful development and commercialization of drugs such as Tecfidera ® (Biogen, Inc.), Thalomid ® (Celgene Corporation), and Viagra ® (Pfizer, Inc.). All of these drugs were identified by insights in biology and disease pathophysiology. The successful business models of biotech companies like Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. and Karuna Therapeutics, Inc. are based on the re-innovation and combination of existing clinical candidates or marketed drugs to provide novel solutions for patients. Unfortunately, such discoveries have been severely limited in scope due to the lack of a genuinely integrated approach to mining big data and advanced analytics.
Our AI-based discovery and development process is the foundation of our drug re-innovation model for identifying the next wave of potential medicines. Our therapeutic area experts have over 200 years of combined experience across the drug discovery and development value chain. We believe that our method of finding potential product candidates gives us a higher probability of success because it combines AI expertise and intuition of human experience in drug development. We believe the combination of AI and drug discovery and development expertise facilitates the generation of therapeutic candidates and gives us a significant competitive advantage.
9
Table of Contents
Our approach is illustrated below:
We continue to integrate and evolve our neuroscience and immuno-oncology AI machine learning and drug discovery and development platform. Our platform led to the identification of Dex, the rapid development of BXCL501, and its approval by the FDA as IGALMI TM , as well as the advancement of BXCL501 for other potential indications. We are continuing to leverage our platform to identify and develop new neuroscience and immuno-oncology programs.
10
Table of Contents
Our Neuroscience Programs
The following is a summary of the status of our neuroscience clinical development programs as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:
As a selective adrenergic agent with a sublingual or buccal route of administration, BXCL501 is designed to be easy to administer and has shown a rapid onset of action in multiple clinical trials, including clinical trials studying patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and dementia. We believe the results from these studies suggest that BXCL501 has the potential to generate a calming effect without producing excessive sedation. We believe that BXCL501 is highly differentiated from antipsychotics currently used as a standard of care for the treatment of agitation that often produce unwanted side effects such as excessive sedation and extra-pyramidal motor effects. Managing patient agitation in neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders represents a significant challenge for physicians and caregivers. We believe that BXCL501 has the potential to address these challenges while providing an efficient treatment regimen for patients.
Agitation Overview and Market Opportunity
Agitation in patients with neuropsychiatric diseases is a serious medical condition. Agitation is characterized by feelings of unease, excessive talking, and/or unintentional and purposeless motions, such as wringing of the hands or pacing. People experiencing agitation may also express excitement, hostility, poor impulse control, tension, uncooperativeness, and occasional disruptive behavior, which may lead to aggression and violence. In many cases, people develop agitation when treatment for their underlying disorder is not working well. Stressful situations or traumatic events can also trigger agitation. Agitation can occur suddenly or slowly and vary in length, lasting for a few minutes or for an extended period.
With the agitation issues associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disease coupled with a fast-growing elderly population that is potentially likely to experience agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease, the difficulties and expenses of acute treatment of agitation are expected to grow significantly. We estimate that in the United States, there are approximately 1.9 million patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease-related dementia (“AAD”) and that those patients experience agitation at a rate of about six episodes per month, on average. In addition, we estimate that there are approximately 1.6 million Americans diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders and that those patients experience agitation at a rate of about three episodes per month, on average. We, therefore, believe there is significant potential market opportunity for BXCL501 if approved for use in these patient populations in the at-home setting. The
11
Table of Contents
foregoing estimates of the incidence of each patient population and the number of agitation episodes experienced and potential market opportunity are based on management’s estimates and third-party data, which may be materially different from actual agitation episodes and actual treatable patients. For additional information regarding risks associated with these estimates, see Part I, Item 1A, Risk Factors “— Our estimated number of episodes of agitation and our corresponding estimated total addressable market are subject to inherent challenges and uncertainties. If we have overestimated the number of episodes or the size of our total addressable market for our current and potential future products or product candidates, or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability may be harmed.”
Treatments for Agitation
Antipsychotics, the current standard of care for acute treatment of agitation in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are also used off-label to treat agitation in dementia and other conditions. Side effects of these medications include movement disorders, including akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms. One of the serious limitations of these drugs is that they can sedate the patient and do not permit verbal interaction with the hospital staff to continue. Intramuscular (“IM”)-delivered antipsychotics, such as haloperidol and olanzapine, are used extensively in this setting but are invasive and often require patient restraint. This type of treatment can dehumanize patients and cause trauma that could have long-term impact on them. Furthermore, these treatments include a black box warning for use in elderly patients.
While sublingual tablet formulations utilizing antipsychotics have been developed, these formulations have long half-lives (21-24 hours) and significant side effects when given acutely or chronically. Oral agents such as benzodiazepines are also used but have a slow onset of action and are consequently ineffective in the acute treatment of agitation. Side effects of these agents include sedation, amnesia, confusion, and paradoxical responses. They can intensify cognitive slowing and worsen memory and motor impairment, contributing to an increased risk of falls and fractures. In addition, long-term use of benzodiazepines has been found to be habit-forming and can cause addiction or relapse to abuse substances. Nonadherence with oral agents can also be problematic as patients may attempt to spit out these medications. We believe that, based on the current method of administration of oral medicine for agitation, an orally dissolving, mucoadhesive film could offer compliance advantages by making it less likely that patients will avoid treatment.
The sublingual or buccal route of administration is an accepted alternative to oral administration of drug delivery to the central nervous system when rapid onset or more controlled delivery is required. Currently, there are six products approved for film administration, including our product, IGALMI TM . For example, BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company, has developed a buccal film formulation of buprenorphine for chronic pain management and buprenorphine and naloxone for opioid dependence. We developed BXCL501 as a differentiated sublingual film dosage form of Dex, which we believe may offer benefits such as ease of use and quick absorption for rapid therapeutic effects.
Mechanism of Action: α2a Adrenergic Receptor and NE Role in Acute Agitation
BXCL501 is a sublingual formulation of Dex that is designed to be easily administered and have a rapid onset of action. Dex is approved in the U.S. for the sedation of initially intubated and mechanically ventilated patients during treatment in the intensive care unit (“ICU”). It is also used in the intensive care setting for sedation of non-intubated patients prior to and/or during surgical and other invasive procedures. Dex, launched in the U.S. as Precedex ™ in 1999, is a selective α2a adrenergic receptor agonist that has a strong safety record and has been studied in over 130 clinical trials to date. It has also been sold in the European Union (“EU”) and other countries under the trade name Dexdor ® as a sedative for intensive care patients. Dex was approved by the European Commission for sedation of adult ICU patients requiring a sedation level no deeper than arousal in response to verbal stimulation (corresponding to Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale 0 to -3). It has been used to prevent or treat hyperactive delirium resulting from anesthesia in
12
Table of Contents
the ICU. Given these uses of the IV formulation of Dex, we believe Dex formulated in a sublingual film and at much lower doses allows for ease of administration in settings where rapid acute treatment of agitation is needed.
IGALMI TM Commercial Progress
We continue to support IGALMI™ in the hospital setting through limited and focused commercial activity. On August 14, 2023, the Company announced it had implemented a shift in commercial strategy for IGALMI TM in the institutional setting, a reduction of in-hospital commercialization expenses, a suspension of programs no longer deemed core to the Company’s business, and a shift to focus on the development of BXCL501 for use in the at-home and care facilities in the treatment of acute agitation in schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and in the treatment of acute agitation (non-daily) associated with dementia due to probable Alzheimer’s disease (collectively, the “Reprioritization”). Following the Reprioritization, a small Corporate Account Director (“CAD”) team supports current customers and targeted Integrated Delivery Networks (“IDNs”) with educational support and contracting opportunities, while our trade operation supports customers with drug supply. The goal of this approach is to help maintain current business and potentially broaden IGALMI TM utilization through volume contracting. Over time, we believe the revised commercial effort is expected to allow the Company to continue to make inroads into the institutional market in a more cost-efficient manner.
Commercial efforts for the IGALMI TM launch were impacted significantly in the six months ended December 31, 2023 due to the reduction in force, which included the elimination of sales, marketing, and commercial operations staff. The realigned CAD team generated $376,000 in net revenue for the three-month period ended December 31, 2023 through legacy sales and volume-based contracts, up from $341,000 for the three-month period ended September 30, 2023. Net revenues from IGALMI™ product sales for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 were $1.4 million and $375,000 respectively.
On October 30, 2023, we announced that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) assigned a new J-Code for IGALMI TM (J1105). J-Codes are permanent codes used by healthcare providers, commercial insurance plans, and government payers to help standardize the reimbursement process. A J-Code can help simplify claims submission as compared to use of a miscellaneous or unlisted code, which in turn can streamline the billing and reimbursement process. The J-Code for IGALMI TM has been published online in the CMS HCPCS Application Summaries and Coding Recommendations, Third Quarter, 2023 HCPCS Coding Cycle. We believe this J-Code, which became effective on January 1, 2024, will facilitate access to IGALMI TM for patients with agitation associated with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.
If IGALMI TM is approved outside the U.S., we would consider launching the product through collaborations with third parties.
Our continued commercialization efforts for IGALMI TM are designed to build the foundation to launch additional potential follow-on indications, if any, paving the way for our expanding neuroscience business.
BXCL501 Development
In indications other than those approved by the FDA as IGALMI TM , BXCL501 remains an investigational, proprietary, orally dissolving film formulation of Dex, a selective alpha-2 receptor agonist, targeting symptoms from stress-related behaviors such as agitation. BXCL501 is our most advanced neuroscience clinical program, being evaluated for the at-home acute treatment of agitation related to bipolar disorders or schizophrenia and for the acute treatment of agitation (non-daily) in patients with dementia due to probable Alzheimer’s disease in care facilities and at-home settings.
As a selective adrenergic agent with a sublingual or buccal route of administration, BXCL501 is designed to be easily administered and, compared to medications that may take days or weeks, has shown a relatively rapid onset of action in multiple clinical trials, including those studying patients with bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease. We believe results from these studies suggest that BXCL501 has the potential to reduce agitation without producing excessive sedation. We also believe BXCL501 is highly differentiated from antipsychotics, which are
13
Table of Contents
currently used as first-line standard-of-care treatments despite often producing unwanted side effects such as excessive sedation or extra pyramidal motor effects. Managing patient agitation in neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders represents a significant challenge for physicians and caregivers. We believe BXCL501 has the potential to address these challenges while providing an efficient treatment regimen for patients.
We also believe that BXCL501, if approved for the respective indications, has the potential to become the standard of care for the acute treatment of agitation arising from diseases such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and Alzheimer’s disease.
In addition, given the differentiated design of BXCL501 and its potential mechanism of action, we believe BXCL501 has the potential to address several diseases or conditions for which agitation is a symptom of the condition or underlying disease, including opioid withdrawal and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), which are being evaluated in clinical trials run by third-parties.
BXCL501 Clinical Trials
TRANQUILITY Program: Acute Agitation Associated with Dementia due to Probable Alzheimer’s Disease (AAD)
On June 29, 2023, we announced positive topline results from TRANQUILITY II, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of BXCL501 for the acute treatment of Alzheimer’s-related agitation in adults 65 years and older with mild to moderate dementia in assisted living facilities (“ALFs”) and residential care settings who required minimal assistance with activities of daily living. The trial dosed 149 patients. Randomized patients self-administered 40 mcg or 60 mcg of BXCL501 or placebo for agitation episodes that occurred over a 12-week period. The primary endpoint was the change from pre-dose in PEC total score at 2 hours post-dose for the first treated episode of agitation. The key secondary efficacy endpoints were PEC change from pre-dose at 1-hour post-dose of study treatment for the first treated episode of agitation, and PEC change from pre-dose at 30 minutes post-dose of study treatment for the first treated episode of agitation.
The Phase 3 trial met its primary efficacy endpoint with the 60 mcg dose; a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 7.5 point reduction from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excitatory Component (“PEC”) total score was observed at 2 hours versus 5.4 with placebo (p=0.0112). The 60 mcg dose also met the first key secondary endpoint of reducing agitation symptoms at 1 hour during the first episode of agitation (p=0.0185) but did not meet the other key secondary endpoint of change from baseline in PEC score at 30 minutes.
Efficacy for this dose was supported by several secondary measures, including CGI-Improvement and Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale. Most patients (76%) responded to the first 60 mcg dose and were determined to be “Very Much” or “Much Improved” (CGI-I of 1 or 2, respectively) compared to 50% with placebo. The primary endpoint was not met for the 40 mcg dose, with a 5.7 point reduction from baseline in PEC score.
On June 29, 2023, we also announced that we had learned that an investigator in this study, who enrolled approximately 40% of the patients, engaged in misconduct. Since that time, we have taken steps to further investigate and evaluate the conduct of the TRANQUILITY II trial at this clinical site. Based on these steps to date, we believe that there have been no further instances of misconduct or fraud or other findings that adversely impact the data integrity or reliability of the eligibility, safety, and efficacy data obtained at the clinical trial site in question.
Our TRANQUILITY III trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BXCL501 in patients residing predominantly in nursing homes with moderate to severe dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease who require moderate or greater assistance with activities of daily living. We halted additional enrollment in this Phase 3 after initial enrolled patients were observed to have more frequent episodes of agitation than originally anticipated, suggesting that agitation may present chronically in this population. Due to the chronic nature of agitation episodes observed in this population thus far, we believe that continued evaluation of BXCL501 in this population would require a different development program targeting more frequent or chronic use. We have chosen to focus our development efforts on the urgent need for episodic treatment in the care facility and at-home setting.
In a Type B/Breakthrough Therapy designation meeting with the FDA on October 11, 2023, we reviewed our
14
Table of Contents
TRANQUILITY clinical trial program and discussed the data package required to support submission of an sNDA for the potential approval of BXCL501 for the acute treatment of agitation in patients with mild to moderate dementia due to probable Alzheimer’s disease in the ALF and at-home settings. Specifically, we sought feedback from the FDA as to whether our data package consisting of TRANQUILITY I and II, along with the clinical pharmacology and toxicology programs previously discussed with the FDA, would be sufficient to support an sNDA submission for the potential use of BXCL501 to treat agitation in patients with mild to moderate dementia due to probable Alzheimer’s disease in either the at-home or ALF setting, or, if not, what additional data would be required. Based on the FDA’s feedback in this meeting, we understand that the FDA will require additional efficacy data, including repeat efficacy data, and that it requested long-term safety data. We therefore requested another meeting with the FDA to further discuss the additional data that would be required to support an sNDA submission.
On February 20, 2024, we held a Type B/Breakthrough Therapy designation meeting with the FDA. The original purpose of this meeting was to obtain feedback on the design of a proposed at-home study that did not include caregiver-collected efficacy endpoints, based on our belief that obtaining caregiver assessments of efficacy would be challenging. We believe there are no validated caregiver endpoints for assessing efficacy in Alzheimer’s disease patients in the at-home setting. As a result, we focused on requesting feedback from the FDA regarding our proposal for an at-home clinical study with safety as the primary objective, and to better understand what additional data would be required to submit an sNDA to support labeling for BXCL501 to include the acute treatment of agitation associated with dementia in probable Alzheimer’s disease or, in the alternative, in this population in the care setting only. In its preliminary responses, the FDA reiterated its prior comments that we generate additional efficacy data, including repeat-dose efficacy data, to support an sNDA submission, as the FDA indicated that our proposed efficacy database, which currently includes the 70 patients who have been treated with 60 mcg of BXCL501 in TRANQUILITY I and TRANQUILITY II, would not contain substantial evidence of effectiveness absent additional data. The FDA advised that we generate the necessary efficacy data in care facilities prior to conducting any trials in the at-home setting. In addition, the FDA indicated the need to generate long-term safety data to support an sNDA submission, including from probable Alzheimer’s disease patients exposed to BXCL501, for up to one year. We have received the final meeting minutes from the FDA, which we believe are consistent with the FDA’s preliminary responses and the subsequent meeting discussion. Based on the FDA’s feedback, we are currently planning to generate additional Phase 3 efficacy and safety data, in a variety of relevant care-facility settings and across severity of dementia using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excitatory Component (“PEC”) as the primary efficacy measure, as used in the prior TRANQUILITY II study. In addition, we plan to discuss the details of the requirement for long-term safety data at a future meeting with the FDA. Also, although we announced in November 2023 that we were planning to conduct a Phase 3 trial in the at-home setting, with safety as the primary objective (TRANQUILITY At Home), given the priority to expand the database to generate additional efficacy and safety data in care facilities, we are re-evaluating the timing for initiating TRANQUILITY At Home.
SERENITY Program: Agitation Associated with Bipolar Disorders I and II and Schizophrenia (at-home use)
We initiated the SERENITY III clinical study of BXCL501 in patients with agitation associated with bipolar disorders or schizophrenia in SERENITY III, which consists of two parts. The first part was comparable to our pivotal SERENITY I and II studies. Using similar inclusion and exclusion criterion under a well-controlled in-patient setting, acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders were randomized to self-administer either 60 mcg of BXCL501 or placebo in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. The primary endpoint of Part I was efficacy, as measured by the change in PEC score change from baseline at two hours post-dose. The secondary objectives of Part I were safety and tolerability.
On May 25, 2023, we reported topline results from Part I of the study. Although the trial did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint, we believe the efficacy results, observed with the 60 mcg dose, representing half of the lowest approved dose of IGALMI TM for in-patient use (120 mcg), were promising. Specifically, greater than 50% of individuals were responders, defined as those patients who achieved a 40% or greater reduction in PEC score. Furthermore, this population responder rate was consistent and dose-proportionate to the same response rates observed in the larger SERENITY I and II trials. Although the primary efficacy endpoint as a group mean change in PEC score from baseline at 2 hours was not statistically significant at the primary endpoint at 2 hours (p=0.077), BXCL501 statistically separated from placebo at 4 hours (p=0.049).
15
Table of Contents
Part II of the SERENITY III study was designed to evaluate the same dose tested in Part I, 60 mcg (with an optional additional 60 mcg dose), but in the at-home setting and focusing on safety only. However, because the trial did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint using this 60 mcg dose in Part I, we paused continuation of Part II of the study pending feedback from the FDA. We held a Type C meeting on November 8, 2023 with the FDA to discuss changes to Part II of our SERENITY III study. We proposed the evaluation of an 80 mcg dose based on previous clinical experience with this dose during our Phase 1b trial in schizophrenia patients with agitation, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling suggesting that use of an 80 mcg dose of BXCL501 could provide an optimal balance between safety and efficacy for at-home use. Based on feedback from the FDA during the meeting, we made the decision to evaluate a 120 mcg dose in the at-home setting. The 120 mcg dose has already demonstrated efficacy based on the approved conditions of use for IGALMI TM (when administered under the supervision of a healthcare provider, for a single agitation episode), so we sought further feedback from the FDA regarding the proposed design of this study amendment in a request for a follow-up meeting with the FDA, which was held on March 6, 2024.
Based on the FDA’s feedback in advance of and during the March 6, 2024 meeting, we plan to move forward to evaluate at-home use of the 120 mcg dose of BXCL501, with safety as the primary objective and efficacy measures as exploratory endpoints to support continued efficacy in the at-home setting as recommended by the FDA in the November 8, 2023 meeting, for the acute treatment of agitation in bipolar disorders or schizophrenia. We also plan to conduct a clinical study designed to enroll approximately 30 patients to evaluate the correlation between patient-reported or informant-reported efficacy with trained rater-reported efficacy using PEC measurements, which the FDA had previously recommended.
IGALMI TM is already approved at the 120 mcg dose based on efficacy data that we previously generated in treating a single episode of agitation. Consistent with the data generated to date, the label for IGALMI TM currently includes a limitation on use (“LOU”), noting the lack of efficacy or safety data beyond 24 hours following the first dose. During our March 6, 2024 Type C meeting with the FDA, we discussed, among other things, whether evaluating the at-home use of BXCL501 120 mcg, with safety as the primary objective and efficacy measures as exploratory endpoints, if successful, could support the submission of an sNDA seeking expansion of the current label for IGALMI TM 120 mcg to allow at-home use and labeling without the current LOU. Based on FDA feedback, we believe that our ability to seek labeling without the current LOU will depend, in part, on the number of agitation episodes we observe during our planned study period. We plan to provide further guidance regarding our plans for the SERENITY program following receipt of the final meeting minutes from the FDA.
Adjunctive treatment in Major Depressive Disorder (“MDD”)
We were previously evaluating BXCL501 as an adjunctive treatment for MDD. The initial clinical study in this program was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending dose (“MAD”) trial to evaluate the safety and tolerability of daily doses of BXCL501 in healthy volunteers.
On May 16, 2023, we reported positive topline results from a MAD study. It enrolled 125 healthy adult volunteers across seven different cohorts in a 2:1 randomization to BXCL501 or placebo film. Healthy volunteers were dosed for 7 consecutive days. Both safety and pharmacokinetics were assessed. The study included 7 cohorts. Four distinct cohorts received 30 mcg, 60 mcg, 80 mcg, or 120 mcg doses of BXCL501 or placebo once daily. Two additional dosing cohorts received twice-daily (BID) BXCL501 at either 30 mcg in the morning and 60 mcg in the evening, or 40 mcg in the morning and 80 mcg in the evening. The final escalation cohort evaluated BXCL501 at 60 mcg in the morning and 80 mcg in the evening in combination with 30 mg of duloxetine BID. BXCL501 was generally well tolerated across all dosing cohorts. Based upon pre-specified stopping criteria, a maximum tolerated dose was not reached. All adverse events were reported as mild or moderate.
As part of the Reprioritization announced on August 14, 2023, we have paused our plan to develop a Phase 2 human proof-of-concept trial design to investigate BXCL501 as a potential adjunctive treatment and its potential accelerant effect in combination with first-line selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.
16
Table of Contents
Pediatric Study
In June 2021, we initiated a global clinical trial designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BXCL501 in the acute treatment of agitation associated with pediatric schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, in part to fulfill pediatric study requirements agreed to with the FDA in connection with the approval of IGALMI TM . The trial protocol has been reviewed by the FDA, as well as by the European Medicines Agency, to fulfill potential commitments to study the effects of BXCL501 in pediatric patients ages 13 to 17 with schizophrenia and ages 10 to 17 with bipolar disorders. Enrollment of patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar I, and bipolar II disorder is ongoing in this multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trial. Approximately 54% of the 150 total subjects have been enrolled in the U.S. and 81 of such subjects have completed the clinical trial. In July 2023, we stopped activities in the European region as enrollment and site recruitment was unproductive. Similar to our registration trials in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (SERENITY I and II), the primary endpoint is the change from baseline PEC total score at two hours. The U.S. portion of this program remains active following the Reprioritization.
Additional Neuroscience Opportunities
BXCL501 Pipeline Opportunities for Franchise Expansion
Given the differentiated design of BXCL501 and its selective mechanism of action, we believe BXCL501 has the potential for broad applicability across several indications where agitation is a symptom of a condition or underlying disease.
Government-Supported Investigator-Initiated Trial Programs
The Company has been awarded key opportunities for the development of BXCL501 in post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), alcohol use disorder (“AUD”), and opioid use disorder (“OUD”). These are being funded through Cooperative Agreements with the U.S. Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program and National Institute on Drug Abuse (“NIDA”). Clinical and regulatory responsibilities are led by clinical researchers and regulatory staff at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, Yale University Medical School, RTI International, Columbia University New York State Psychiatric Institute, and NIDA. The Company has retained all rights to commercialization of BXCL501 in all potential indications evaluated in clinical trials supported by the U.S. government.
Opioid Use Disorder Program
As previously announced, NIDA awarded a grant to Columbia University to fund clinical testing of BXCL501 as a potential treatment for opioid withdrawal in patients diagnosed with OUD. The original 160-patient, three-site, four-arm study is a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy inpatient study comparing BXCL501 (180 mcg and 240 mcg BID), lofexidine (as a positive control), and placebo. The study’s goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BXCL501 relative to lofexidine and placebo in subjects with OUD. A majority of OUD patients participating in the study are anticipated to be exposed to fentanyl adulterated or associated with xylazine . To date, a ll three initial sites have recruited, enrolled, and dosed patients diagnosed with OUD who are physically dependent on opioids, including prescription opioids. The Company is supplying the drug product for the conduct of this study, which is sponsored by Columbia University . We expect that the results from current study will be used to select a recommended dose of BXCL501 to compare to placebo in a later outpatient Phase 3 study sponsored by NIDA.
On November 6, 2023, we announced that NIDA has requested Columbia University, the trial coordinator, to add a fourth site to target trial completion in 2024. The patient screening and enrollment process for the fourth site commenced in March 2024. Pending favorable results, after completion of the trial, we plan to seek FDA feedback on potential registrational paths.
Alcohol Use Disorder with Comorbid Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Program
In December 2020, the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System and Yale University Medical School were awarded a grant by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program with the
17
Table of Contents
overall objective to evaluate BXCL501 in patients who suffer from AUD with comorbid PTSD. The Company provided BXCL501 for the inpatient Alcohol Interaction Study, which has been completed. We understand Yale is currently seeking approval from its IRB and allowance from the FDA to proceed with a trial evaluating the effects of up to 80 mcg BID of BXCL501 per day for 28 days on alcohol consumption, PTSD symptoms, cognitive function, memory, sleep, and mood in patients diagnosed with mild, moderate, or severe AUD and who meet Criterion A for comorbid PTSD. The new outpatient study has received funding approval from the Pharmacotherapies for Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders Alliance (funded through a Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program and RTI International). We believe the results from this study will be used to inform a Phase 3 study intended to commence with support by the alliance.
Algorithms for Wearable Technologies
The Company completed a healthy volunteer study designed to train an algorithm to detect a state of hyper-arousal, which often precedes agitated behaviors. In hyper-aroused healthy volunteers, robust signals were measured using wearable technology (phones and watches). As part of the Reprioritization announced on August 14, 2023, we deprioritized our plan to develop wearable technology.
BXCL502 Development
We identified a second neuropsychiatric drug candidate, BXCL502 − Latrepirdine (Dimebon) − through our AI-based platform. We plan to evaluate BXCL502 initially as a monotherapy and possibly in combination with BXCL501 for the chronic treatment of agitation in patients with dementia and acute stress disorder. The active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) underlying BXCL502 is designed to affect serotonergic signaling in the brain. Our preclinical data suggests BXCL502 has the potential to treat stress-related neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia and other stress-related disorders. In previously published third-party clinical trial data, daily administration of the API of BXCL502 demonstrated improvement in behaviors using a well-established, clinically validated symptom scale. Formulation and further clinical development planning are currently under way with BXCL502 and are expected to continue in 2024.
Other Product Candidates Leveraging the AI Platform
We are targeting neuropsychiatric disorders with high unmet medical needs. Our focus is on treating stress-related symptoms, such as agitation, that are responsible for increased levels of healthcare burden. We are also using AI approaches and machine learning to identify new candidates for rare neurological diseases and to re-innovate late-stage drug candidates, such as BXCL503, targeting apathy in dementia, and BXCL504, targeting aggression in dementia.
We utilize proprietary algorithms to identify associated mechanisms with existing pharmacology to test whether these agents can improve the disease profile in the animal model either through disease modification or symptomatic manner. The agents identified must be those we believe can enter the clinic with the potential for an efficient development path (similar to BXCL501). We are also developing an AI-based research and development platform to help identify potential product candidates and indications across a range of treatment areas.
Neuroscience Competition
The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. The neuroscience and rare disease segments of the industry are highly competitive. While we believe that our technology, development experience, and scientific knowledge provide competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions.
Many of our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources, and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical studies, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved medicines than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and in
18
Table of Contents
establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to or necessary for our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.
The key competitive factors affecting the success of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the effectiveness of companion diagnostics in guiding the use of related therapeutics, if any, the level of generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.
Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize medicines that are safer, more effective, more convenient, less expensive, or have fewer or less severe side effects than any medicines we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their medicines more rapidly than us, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic medicines. There are many generic medicines currently on the market for certain indications that we are pursuing, and additional generics are expected to become available over the coming years. We expect that any of our therapeutic product candidates that are approved will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic medicines.
Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. IGALMI TM and any of our other product candidates that are approved, if any, will compete with the drugs discussed below, in addition to any other drugs currently in development.
Drugs used for the acute treatment of agitation related to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are antipsychotics frequently administered via IM injection that typically requires patient restraint. These include IM aripiprazole, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and haloperidol. Oral products include the sublingually administered atypical antipsychotic asenapine, as well as benzodiazepines, lorazepam, and midazolam. The typical antipsychotic Adasuve ® (loxapine) from Alexza is delivered via inhalation.
Neuroscience Manufacturing
We do not have manufacturing facilities. We currently rely on strategic manufacturing partners, in particular ARx, LLC (“ARx”), and expect to continue to rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for clinical research and our products for commercialization efforts. ARx has agreed to exclusively manufacture and supply all of our worldwide supply of film formulation of dexmedetomidine to be used for the commercial supply of IGALMI TM and for ongoing clinical trials of BXCL501, subject to certain alternative supply provisions.
BXCL501 drug product is manufactured using commercially available components and packaging materials. The equipment employed for manufacture and analysis is consistent with standard pharmaceutical production.
Neuroscience Commercialization
We plan to retain worldwide commercialization rights for IGALMI TM and other approved product candidates, if any, but could consider collaboration opportunities to maximize returns or facilitate commercialization efforts in foreign jurisdictions. For additional information regarding our commercialization efforts for IGALMI TM , see above under “IGALMI TM Commercial Progress.”
As product candidates advance through our pipeline, our commercialization plans may change. Clinical data, the size of the development programs, the size of the target market, the required commercial infrastructure, and manufacturing needs may all influence global commercialization strategies.
Neuroscience Intellectual Property
Our policy is to protect and enhance the proprietary technologies, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to our business by filing patent applications in the U.S. and other jurisdictions related to our
19
Table of Contents
proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates. We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, and know-how relating to our proprietary technologies and product candidates, continuing innovation, and in-licensing technology and products. This reliance is expected to develop, maintain, and strengthen our proprietary position for novel therapeutics and novel formulations of existing therapeutics across multiple therapeutic areas. We also plan to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions when available.
We have multiple patent families filed to protect our Neuroscience program, including BXCL501. As of March 15, 2024, our neuroscience patent portfolio included two Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) applications not yet in national phase, 19 U.S. utility applications, seven U.S. provisional applications, one allowed US application, ten issued U.S. utility patents, 112 pending non-U.S. utility applications, 18 allowed or granted non-U.S. patents (including three in Japan), one pending U.S. design patent application, and 34 allowed or registered design patents (including two in Japan). Eight U.S. utility patents, directed to our proprietary sublingual film formulation of Dex and methods of treating agitation, are now listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the “Orange Book”) for IGALMI™ with expiration dates between 2039 and 2043. In the formulation family, we also have a granted patent in China, two granted patents in Eurasia, and pending applications in the U.S., China, and other major markets. We expect that patents issued in this family will expire no earlier than 2039. We have also filed applications in additional patent families that are relevant to BXCL501. We have applications pending in the U.S., Europe and Japan directed to methods of treating insomnia using sublingual Dex. We expect that patents issued from these applications, if any, will expire no earlier than 2035. We also have applications filed in 16 regions/countries, including the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China, directed to methods of treating agitation. We expect that patents issued from these applications, if any, will expire between 2039 and 2043. We also have one PCT application directed to treating mania and another to treating depression. If patents are issued from those cases, we expect them to expire no earlier than 2041 and 2042, respectively.
In March 2024, the Company announced that the European Patent Office granted the Company’s European Patent No. 3,562,486 (the “’486 patent”), which covers the use of dexmedetomidine administered sublingually to treat agitation in individuals with dementia. The ‘486 patent encompasses a broad range of dosage forms, including films such as BXCL501 (sublingual dexmedetomidine), wafers, and tablets, at dexmedetomidine doses ranging from 3 mcg to 100 mcg. The ‘486 patent will expire no earlier than December 29, 2037.
In February 2024, the Company announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) had allowed U.S. Patent Application No. 17/496,470 with claims pertaining to a method of treating agitation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease using the oromucosal administration of 60 mcg of dexmedetomidine in a water-soluble dosage form. The broad claims encompass film formulations such as BXCL501 (sublingual dexmedetomidine), tablets, or wafers. The patent, when issued, is expected to have an expiration date of December 29, 2037, subject to patent term adjustment (“PTA”), patent term extension (“PTE”) and terminal disclaimers.
In February 2024, the Company also announced the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 11,890,272 (the “'272 Patent”) on February 6, 2024. The '272 Patent claims a method of treating agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder through oromucosal administration of about 120 mcg to about 180 mcg of dexmedetomidine where the patient has a QT interval of less than 470 msec. The '272 Patent has an expiration date of July 17, 2040, subject to PTA, PTE and terminal disclaimers. The '272 Patent has been accepted for listing in the FDA Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the “Orange Book”).
In February 2024, the Company also received notice that the USPTO had allowed U.S. Patent Application No. 18/216,890 with claims pertaining to a method of treating agitation using an oromucosal formulation of dexmedetomidine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof through the administration of an initial dose of 60 mcg, 80 mcg, 90 mcg, 120 mcg or 180 mcg of dexmedetomidine and, after at least two hours, administering an oromucosal formulation of dexmedetomidine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof in a second dose of 40 mcg, 60 mcg, 80 mcg or 90 mcg of dexmedetomidine, where the patient has a QT interval of less than 470 msec. The patent, when issued, is expected to have an expiration date of July 17, 2040, subject to PTA, PTE and terminal disclaimers. The Company expects that this patent, when issued, will be submitted for listing in the Orange Book with the eight currently listed U.S.
20
Table of Contents
patents for IGALMI™ (dexmedetomidine) sublingual film. Collectively, these nine patents will in general extend patent protection for IGALMI TM until January 12, 2043.
The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the U.S., the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of FDA approval of our product candidates, a U.S. patent that we own or license may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (a.k.a., the “Hatch-Waxman Act”). The act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the drug approval regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND, and the submission date of a new drug application (“NDA”), plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and the application for extension must be made prior to patent expiration. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we intend to apply for restorations of patent term for some of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond their current expiration date, depending on the expected length of clinical trials and other factors involved in the submission of the relevant NDA.
The term of a patent can also be extended by Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) established in 35 U.S.C. 154(b). The intention of the PTA is to accommodate for delays caused by the USPTO during the prosecution of a US utility or plant patent application. Under PTA, the USPTO delay is divided into three types: type A (delays after 14 months from the filing date of the application until the USPTO issues a first Office Action and delays after four months from the filing of certain actions by the applicant until the USPTO responds to such actions); type B (delays after three years from the earliest effective filing date until a patent is granted); and type C (delays due to interferences, secrecy orders, and successful appeals). The total amount of PTA is calculated by adding the types A, B, and C delays, and then subtracting any delay that is overlapped among three types or that is attributable to the applicant.
The term of a patent can also be shortened by a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer is a statement filed by a patent owner in which the owner disclaims or dedicates to the public the terminal part of the term of a patent. Often, the terminal disclaimer is filed in cases where at least one claim of a pending application would have been obvious in light of at least one claim in an earlier-filed patent, (or non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection).
The patent positions of companies such as ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in patents in the field of method of use patents or reformulation patents has emerged in the U.S. patent laws and their interpretation outside of the U.S. are also uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the U.S. and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our technology or product candidates and enforce the patent rights that we license, and also could affect the value of such intellectual property. In particular, our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing products that infringe our intellectual property will depend in part on our success in obtaining and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions, and improvements. With respect to both licensed and company owned intellectual property, we cannot guarantee that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications we may file in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our products, the methods of use, or the manufacture of those products. In addition, if a pending patent application is granted, it is possible that only a subset of the claims that are currently contained in the pending patent application will be issued. Further, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology space are evolving and involve many risks and uncertainties. For example, third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our product candidates and practicing our proprietary technology, and the issued patents that we in-license and those that may issue in the future may be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related products or could limit the term of patent protection that otherwise may exist for our product candidates. In addition, the scope of the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies outside the scope of the rights granted under any issued
21
Table of Contents
patents that we own or exclusively in license. For these reasons, we may face competition with respect to our product candidates. Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing, and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any particular product candidate can be commercialized, any patent protection for such product may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing the commercial advantage the patent provides. For additional information regarding intellectual property regulations and risks, see below under “Immuno-Oncology Intellectual Property” and Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
Immuno-Oncology
On April 19, 2022, we announced the formation of a wholly owned subsidiary, OnkosXcel to develop potentially transformative medicines in oncology. OnkosXcel uses proprietary AI capabilities to drive the capital-efficient development of innovative anti-cancer therapeutics. On March 14, 2023, we announced that OnkosXcel had confidentially submitted a draft registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC relating to the proposed initial public offering of its common stock following its conversion into a corporation. The Company is continuing to evaluate strategic options for OnkosXcel. With the Company’s Reprioritization announcement on August 14, 2023, further work on the immuno-oncology programs described below have generally been paused, except as noted below.
Our approach to drug discovery leverages the application and methodology of our proprietary AI-based research and development platform, complemented by EvolverAI, utilized in the successful development of IGALMI TM with the aim of efficiently identifying and developing immuno-oncology product candidates. We believe that BXCL701 reflects the potential of this discovery approach in immuno-oncology. BXCL701 is an investigational, oral innate immune activator which demonstrated a 25% composite response rate in a Phase 2a clinical trial to treat patients with small cell neuroendocrine (“SCNC”)-phenotype metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (“mCRPC”). On February 12, 2024, the Company announced that the FDA has designated as a Fast Track development program the investigation of BXCL701 in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of patients with metastatic SCNC with progression on chemotherapy and no evidence of microsatellite instability. We intend to finalize a potential registrational trial design in mCRPC patients with SCNC phenotype following planned meetings with the FDA in the first half of 2024. However, the start of any such trial is paused following our Reprioritization.
mCRPC is often characterized as a “cold” tumor, which is a tumor with an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (“TME”) and poor immune cell infiltration. Currently approved checkpoint inhibitors (“CPIs”) that target programmed cell death 1 (“PD-1”) or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (“CTLA-4") have failed to demonstrate meaningful single-agent activity against such difficult-to-treat tumor types, including mCRPC. BXCL701 is designed to promote an immune-induced inflammatory response in the TME primarily via inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidases (“DPP”) 8 and 9, which we believe can provide enhanced CPIs therapeutic utility. We believe BXCL701 can potentially provide significant benefits for the approximately 20% of the estimated 299,010 men who will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in the U.S. in 2024 and are expected to progress to the more aggressive mCRPC form of the disease, including approximately 20%, or 11,960, of those patients who develop the SCNC phenotype, for which there are currently limited treatment options. Immune checkpoints represent a myriad of inhibitory pathways that act to regulate the duration and intensity of an antigen-induced immune response and factor prominently in mediating immune tolerance. They function as critical gatekeepers that prevent the indiscriminate attack of normal host cells by components of the immune system. Certain cancers co-opt these pathways and overexpress immune checkpoint molecules to camouflage themselves to avoid detection and destruction. CPIs, designed to harness the intrinsic power resident in the immune system, work by disabling the suppressive function of immune checkpoints, allowing the immune system to bypass such cancers’ shield of immune tolerance. CPIs are expected to generate sales of more than $50 billion worldwide by 2025, up from sales of approximately $29 billion in 2020. While CPIs have proven to be a significant advancement in cancer therapy, those currently approved by the FDA do not produce meaningful results in a majority of patients, as the clinical benefit is generally viewed to be limited to between 13% and 30% of cancer patients, and the duration of response is relatively short.
We believe the limited efficacy of approved CPIs results primarily from their intervention at later stages of the immune response. As a result, other targets and pathways can be exploited by the tumor to create a TME that can evade the enhanced immunological response enabled by approved CPIs. While numerous agents designed to target the earlier stages of an immune response are in development for use in combination with CPIs, their activity is restricted to a single
22
Table of Contents
component of the immune response. In contrast, we have developed BXCL701 to simultaneously address multiple components of the immune response, including:
● Cancer antigen presentation by dendritic cells : stimulation of dendritic cell trafficking to tumor draining lymph nodes.
● Priming and activation of T cells : acceleration of tumor-induced priming of T cells and the formation of potent cytotoxic T lymphocytes (“CTLs”).
● Infiltration of immune cells into the tumor : stimulation of release of chemokines that attract effector T cells but block regulatory T cells, and also induce NK cell and neutrophil migration.
● Killing of tumor cells : induction of formation of CTLs and NK cells expressing tumor-killing perforins and granzymes, as well as the formation of memory T cells that can selectively kill returning tumor cells.
Accordingly, we believe BXCL701 may have utility in stimulating increased activation, proliferation, and infiltration of tumor cells by immune effector cells, enabling its potential application in combination with currently approved CPIs, across a range of solid tumors and hematological malignancies, to potentially:
● Convert immunological cold tumors into ones sensitive to CPIs;
● Enhance hot tumors’ response rate and depth of response to CPIs; and
● Restore CPI sensitivity to tumors that were previously responsive.
Central to our drug discovery initiatives are proprietary, AI-driven platform technologies we employ to identify novel therapeutic uses for approved therapeutics and candidates in clinical evaluation. The first and most advanced of our AI-driven discovery programs is our innate immune modulation program, which supported the pursuit of BXCL701 as a development candidate. We believe the application of this program provides us actionable insights into the inflammasome, a component of the innate immune system responsible for activation of the inflammatory response. We are working to develop our second AI-driven product candidate, BXCL702, by leveraging our innate immunity modulation program via re-innovation or in-licensing and we intend to nominate a candidate by 2025.
Our Immuno-Oncology Programs
Below is a summary of the status of our immuno-oncology clinical development programs as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We believe our product candidates, if successfully developed and approved, have the potential to become compelling treatment options for their respective indications. With our Strategic Reprioritization announcement on August 14, 2023, further work on our immuno-oncology program has been paused, other than as noted below.
23
Table of Contents
An Overview of the Immune System
The immune system is a host defense system comprised of multiple structures and processes within an organism that protects against disease. As with other mammalian species, the human immune system is comprised of the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system. The innate immune system involves an immediate, non-specific response to infected or diseased cells. Triggering its activation are pathogen-associated and damage-associated molecular patterns recognized by pattern-recognition receptors, which reside on the surface of various types of leukocytes, or white blood cells, making up the innate immune system including phagocytes, eosinophils, and natural killer cells. The innate immune response also participates in promoting activity of the adaptive immune system.
The adaptive immune system is made up of special types of leukocytes known as T and B lymphocytes, or T cells and B cells, respectively. T cells participate primarily in the cell-mediated immune response while B cells are involved in the humoral immune response. T lymphocytes can be further segregated into distinct cell types, with the primary types being CD8, or cytotoxic, T cells and CD4 T cells. CTLs directly eliminate cells that are infected with viruses or other pathogens or are otherwise damaged or dysfunctional. Anti-cancer activity is primarily CD8 T cell mediated. CD4 T cells, which have limited cytotoxic activity, mediate the activity of other cells to eliminate pathogens. Activation of a resting CD4 T cell causes it to release cytokines that influence the activity of an array of cell types. Cytokines released by activated Type 1 CD4 T cells enhance the microbicidal activity of macrophages and the activity of CD8 T cells.
A critical capability of the immune system is its ability to distinguish between healthy, functioning host cells and either non-self-infectious agents or damaged or dysfunctional host cells. The ability to differentiate between these entities is the central feature of immune tolerance. A significant limitation of currently approved therapeutics against endogenous diseases such as cancer is the inability to overcome host immune tolerance and elicit a strong, target-specific immune response while avoiding off-target complications.
Immune Tolerance and the Role of Immune Checkpoints
The immune system’s ability to distinguish between a normal, healthy cell and an infected, damaged, dysfunctional, or cancer cell is accomplished through an immunological selection process that occurs in the thymus during early development. Antigen specific immune cells, such as T cells, B cells and NK cells, which recognize molecular markers originating from normal, healthy tissues are eliminated in the thymic medulla to avoid possible autoimmune consequences through a negative selection process. This results in the suppression of immune effector cell activation and proliferation. Immune checkpoints represent a myriad of inhibitory pathways that act to regulate the duration and intensity of antigen-induced immune responses and factor prominently in mediating immune tolerance. A number of
24
Table of Contents
checkpoint molecules have been identified and studied in cancer therapy in the past decades. Two of the more well-characterized immune checkpoint molecules are CTLA-4 and PD-1, and its related ligand, PD-L1.
As key regulators of the immune system, immune checkpoints are critical gatekeepers that prevent the indiscriminate attack of normal host cells by components of the immune system. Their suppressive function usually depends on ligand-induced signaling, with protein structures on the surface of immune effector cells binding to complementary molecular structures on partnered cells. This signaling not only dampens the generation of co-stimulatory cytokines instrumental in triggering and sustaining a robust immune response, such as interleukin 2 and interferon gamma, but also results in an upregulation of regulatory T cells, which acts to further suppress immune effector cell activity. These factors bias the immune response towards anergy and senescence rather than activation and proliferation. Certain tumors co-opt these pathways and overexpress immune checkpoint molecules on their cell surface to camouflage themselves to evade detection and destruction by the immune system.
Immunotherapy and the Emergence of Checkpoint Inhibitors
Cancer immunotherapy, designed to harness the intrinsic power resident in the immune system by modulating immune cell function, has proven to be a major advancement in cancer treatment. Immune CPIs have emerged as one of the most promising classes of cancer immunotherapy. CPIs work by disabling the inhibitory function of immune checkpoint proteins. Disabling immune checkpoints allows the immune system to bypass the shield of immune tolerance the checkpoints provide, allowing the tumor-directed immune effector cells to engage the tumor. Seven CPIs targeting PD1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 have been approved by the FDA to treat more than a dozen different types of cancer. CPIs directed towards other validated checkpoints, including lymphocyte activation gene 3 and T cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and ITIM domain have recently been approved or are advancing through clinical development. These CPIs are largely involved in modulating the activity of the adaptive immune system. Immune checkpoint molecules, such as CD47, which regulate responses mediated by the innate immune system, are also under evaluation as potential therapeutic targets for checkpoint inhibition. CPIs across a spectrum of cancer types are expected to generate sales of more than $50 billion worldwide by 2025, up from sales of $29 billion in 2020.
Limitations of Current Approaches
While CPIs have proven to be a significant advancement in cancer therapy, those currently approved by the FDA do not produce meaningful results in a majority of patients: clinical benefit is generally viewed to be limited to between 13% and 30% of cancer patients and the duration of response to treatment is often short. CPIs require the infiltration of anti-tumor CD8 T cells for therapeutic activity, and patients whose tumors are characterized by a TME that lacks activated TILs, typically fail to respond to therapy. Moreover, the expression of positive costimulatory signals is critical to the amplification and diversification of a TIL-based response following initial activation, without which treatment durability is limited. We are focused on advancing therapeutic candidates designed to overcome these challenges and
25
Table of Contents
enhance the sensitivity of immunologically inaccessible, or cold, tumors to an efficacious immune response. The chart below shows the single agent objective response rate (“ORR”) of CPIs by different cancer types and clinical trial.
Immuno-Oncology Clinical Trials
Leveraging the insights enabled by the application and methodology of our proprietary AI-based platform complemented by EvolverAI, which was used to identify novel therapeutic uses for our approved therapeutics and product candidates in clinical evaluation, and our industry expertise, we are pursuing two proprietary discovery programs to advance our goal of developing anti-cancer therapeutics. The first program, which encompasses BXCL701 across a range of indications, is based on the application of innate immune modulation technology. This program has been constructed to embrace key distinguishing characteristics of the innate immune system and we believe it is supported by our development efforts. This approach has driven the development of BXCL701, which we are currently evaluating in a Phase 1b/2a clinical proof-of-concept trial as a potential treatment for mCRPC with either SCNC or adenocarcinoma phenotype. Fundamental to the innate immune modulation program is BXCL701’s potential to:
● Convert cold tumors into ones sensitive to CPIs;
● Enhance hot tumors’ response rate and depth of response to CPIs; and
● Restore CPI sensitivity to tumors which had previously been responsive.
BXCL701 Innate Immune Activator
BXCL701 is an oral small molecule inhibitor of a class of enzymes called DPPs, specifically DPP8/9 and DPP4. Inhibition of DPP8/9 initiates activation of the inflammasome and ultimately activation of the innate immune system. Key characteristics of BXCL701 include:
● Orally bioavailable, potentially sole inhibitor of both DPP8/9 and DPP4, key regulators of the inflammasome directed innate immune response, currently in clinical development for cancer.
26
Table of Contents
● Novel proposed mechanism of action may complement CPIs activity, enabling therapeutic access to immunologically cold tumors as well as other difficult-to-treat cancers, including relapsed or refractory tumor types.
● Phase 2 clinical proof-of-concept achieved in treating mCRPC patients with either adenocarcinoma or SCNC phenotype.
The initial focus on mCRPC with SCNC phenotype is designed to provide for a more efficient clinical development pathway than current industry standards.
BXCL701 as a Potential Treatment for mCRPC
Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy and the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men in the U.S. According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 299,010 men will be diagnosed with, and 35,250 men will die of, prostate cancer in 2024. The majority of these cases are classified as adenocarcinomas and involve low risk, localized or regional disease for which the five-year survival rate ranges from 60% to 99%. However, an estimated 20% of these newly diagnosed cases will progress to the more aggressive metastatic disease. The five-year survival rate for men with metastatic prostate cancer drops significantly, to approximately 30%. Approximately 20% of patients with mCRPC will develop the SCNC phenotype, which is characterized by poor prognosis and low survival rate with a five-year life expectancy of 14%.
Prostate function requires the presence of various androgens, such as testosterone. Early cancerous prostate cells typically also require androgens to proliferate. Accordingly, aggressive forms of prostate cancer can initially be treated using androgen deprivation therapy (“ADT”). While ADT offers temporary therapeutic benefit, in almost all patients the treatment eventually loses efficacy, referred to as “castration resistance.” Cases of castration-resistant prostate cancer (“CRPC”) are generally treated with a second-generation androgen receptor (“AR”) inhibitor, such as XTANDI â (enzalutamide), or an androgen synthesis inhibitor, such as ZYTIGA â (abiraterone), which targets the enzyme CYP17 to block the production of testosterone. These therapeutics have widely become the standard of care, though only ZYTIGA has been approved to treat mCRPC, as well as metastatic high-risk castration-sensitive prostate cancer. XTANDI has been approved to treat CRPC and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.
Virtually all patients who initially respond to ZYTIGA and XTANDI are expected to progress to even more aggressive forms of prostate cancer requiring further treatment. Patients whose disease has progressed after treatment with these second-generation targeted endocrine therapies are administered a docetaxel containing drug regimen that provides a survival benefit of only 10 months. The poly-ADP ribose polymerase (“PARP”) inhibitors LYNPARZA â (olaparib) and RUBRACA â (rucaparib) are approved for the treatment of mCRPC in patients whose disease has progressed after receiving XTANDI or ZYTIGA, but their approval is limited to instances of mCRPC linked to a BRCA gene mutation. As such, an unmet medical need remains for patients with mCRPC who are not eligible for PARP inhibitor treatment after treatment with the targeted endocrine therapy and docetaxel.
In addition, a number of men, both newly diagnosed patients and men whose disease has progressed after second-generation targeted endocrine therapy, will develop an aggressive tumor that typically expresses very little AR and accordingly does not respond to therapeutics targeting the AR signaling pathway. Prostate cancer with this phenotype is referred to as SCNC, for which there is currently no effective treatment. The incidence of SCNC is increasing with the widespread use of AR inhibitor therapy. Treatment protocols for patients with SCNC typically involve cytotoxic chemotherapies despite their short duration of response and considerable toxicities. These patients represent an additional unmet medical need among men with prostate cancer. We believe BXCL701 may prove efficacious in addressing the unmet needs of both adenocarcinoma and SCNC prostate cancer phenotypes.
mCRPC is often characterized as a cold tumor, or a tumor with an immunosuppressive TME and poor immune cell infiltration. Currently approved CPIs, which target PD-1 and CTLA-4, have not demonstrated significant single-agent therapeutic activity. For instance, a Phase 2 investigator sponsored trial (“IST”) to assess the efficacy of the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab, marketed by EMD Serono and Pfizer as BAVENCIO â , to treat mCRPC with SCNC phenotype, as well as aggressive variant prostate cancer with adenocarcinoma histology, generated an ORR of 6.7% (representing 1 of 15 patients who was known to be microsatellite instability-high, an established marker of response to CPIs).
27
Table of Contents
We believe the limited efficacy of CPIs results primarily from their intervention at later stages of the immune response. As a result, other targets and pathways can be exploited by the tumor to create a TME that can evade the enhanced immunological response enabled by approved CPIs. BXCL701 is designed to act on multiple components of immune system functioning, including:
● Cancer antigen presentation by dendritic cells : stimulation of dendritic cell trafficking to tumor draining lymph nodes.
● Priming and activation of T cells : acceleration of tumor-induced priming of T cells and the formation of potent CTLs.
● Infiltration of immune cells into the tumor : stimulation of release of chemokines that attract effector T cells but block regulatory T cells and also induce NK cell and neutrophil migration.
● Killing of tumor cells : induction of formation of CTLs and NK cells expressing tumor-killing perforins and granzymes as well as the formation of memory T cells that can selectively kill returning tumor cells.
We believe BXCL701 may have utility in stimulating increased activation, proliferation, and infiltration of tumor cells by immune effector cells, enabling its potential use in combination with currently approved CPIs to treat cold tumors, such as mCRPC. We elected to pursue mCRPC as an indication for BXCL701 due to its enrichment for DPP mutations, which are especially prevalent in tumors with SCNC phenotype.
BXCL701 is being evaluated in a Phase 1b/2a clinical proof-of-concept trial that we are sponsoring to investigate its potential efficacy when used in combination with pembrolizumab. Enrollment in this trial is complete.
We received initial comments from the FDA on our proposed clinical development plan, and we plan to meet with the FDA in an End-of-Phase 2 meeting in the first half of 2024 to discuss the development path forward. However, the start of any such additional trial is paused following the Company’s Reprioritization. The Phase 1b portion of our Phase 1b/2 clinical trial was a dose escalation safety lead-in which employed a standard 3 x 3 trial design to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (“RP2D”). During each 21-day treatment cycle, 200 mg of pembrolizumab were administered intravenously on day one, with BXCL701 taken twice daily on days one through 14, for a minimum of two cycles. The results of this Phase 1b trial, which were presented at The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35 th Anniversary Annual Meeting, allowed us to identify 0.3 mg, taken twice daily, as the RP2D.
28
Table of Contents
The Phase 2a portion of the trial was segregated into two 28-patient trial cohorts, one cohort consisting of mCRPC patients with SCNC phenotype and a second cohort consisting of mCRPC patients with adenocarcinoma phenotype. Initially, we focused on mCRPC with SCNC phenotype as the primary patient population for BXCL701, since DPP9 is amplified in approximately 17% of treatment-emergent mCRPC with SCNC phenotype, compared to 5% or less in the broader prostate cancer population. However, we also observed responses in mCRPC patients with adenocarcinoma phenotype who were microsatellite stable in the Phase 1b portion of the trial. On this basis, we widened our Phase 2a trial to include relapsed mCRPC patients with either SCNC or adenocarcinoma phenotype. Both cohorts employed a Simon two-stage trial design of 15 trial participants followed by 13 additional patients. The primary endpoint of the Phase 2a portion of this trial was a composite response rate, determined as either a RECIST 1.1 response (defined as a reduction in RECIST score of 30% or more), and/or a reduction in prostate specific antigen (“PSA”) level of 50% or more, and/or a conversion in circulating tumor cells (“CTCs”) from 5 or more CTCs/7.5 milliliter (“ml”) to less than 5 CTCs/7.5 ml. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, changes in circulating cytokines, and certain disease-specific biomarkers.
We believe the results observed in the Phase 2a trial of BXCL701 administered in combination with pembrolizumab support further development.
We were particularly encouraged by the results observed in the cohort consisting of mCRPC patients with SCNC phenotype. Updated Phase 2a results for the SCNC cohort were presented at the 30 th Annual Prostate Cancer Foundation Scientific Retreat (PCF 2023). BXCL701 in combination with pembrolizumab demonstrated a 25% (seven out of 28 evaluable patients) composite response rate in mCRPC patients with SCNC phenotype, for whom there is no standard of care. As of a data cutoff of September 6, 2023, five of these responders were RECIST 1.1 responders (four confirmed responses and one unconfirmed response) with decreases in tumor size ranging from -45% to -67% and a median duration of response of 7.6 months.
29
Table of Contents
AEs consistent with cytokine activation, including fever, nausea, chills, fatigue, headache, and dizziness were observed during the trial and were generally mild to moderate. SAEs experienced by six trial participants - one patient hospitalized with Grade 1 orthostatic hypotension, one patient hospitalized with Grade 3 hypotension and acute kidney injury (“AKI”), which resolved, one patient with Grade 3 hypothyroidism which resolved, one patient with Grade 3 colitis, one patient with Grade 3 generalized oedema, and one patient hospitalized with Grade 4/5 tumor lysis syndrome/AKI, which resulted in fatality after the patient voluntarily discontinued dialysis - were reported as related or possibly related to BXCL701 or pembrolizumab, though there was no evidence that BXCL701 potentiated immune-related AEs associated with CPIs. The table below summarizes treatment-related AEs observed in the SCNC cohort as of December 19, 2022.
30
Table of Contents
On October 10, 2023, we reported positive overall survival (OS) results from the Phase 2a portion of the trial in SCNC patients. BXCL701 in combination with pembrolizumab demonstrated a compelling median OS and 12-month survival rate. As of a data cutoff of September 6, 2023, evaluable patients with SCNC (n = 28) showed a median OS of 13.6 months (95% CI 10.9–NR), and a 12-month survival rate of 56.5%.
On February 12, 2024 the Company announced that the FDA designated as a Fast Track development program the investigation of BXCL701 in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor for treatment of patients with metastatic SCNC with progression on chemotherapy and no evidence of microsatellite instability.
The Phase 2a trial has also been completed for the adenocarcinoma cohort. Updated results for this trial cohort were also presented at PCF 2023. BXCL701 in combination with pembrolizumab demonstrated a 21% (six out of 29 evaluable patients) composite response rate in mCRPC patients with adenocarcinoma phenotype, for whom there are limited treatment options. As of a cutoff date of September 6, 2023, five of these composite responders were RECIST 1.1 responders (four confirmed responses and one unconfirmed response) with decreases in tumor size ranging from -30% to -99% and a median duration of response to 19 months.
31
Table of Contents
As of the cutoff date of December 19, 2022, the majority of AEs experienced by patients in the adenocarcinoma cohort were low grade. AEs consistent with cytokine activation were observed, including fever, myalgia, nausea, chills, fatigue, dyspnea, headache and dizziness. SAEs experienced by five patients (12%) were reported as possibly related to BXCL701 or pembrolizumab: two reports of hypotension; one report of dizziness; one report of peripheral edema; one report of pyrexia; one report of Myasthenia Gravis; and one report of Cytokine Release Syndrome. Two patients (5%) discontinued therapy due to AEs. There was no evidence that BXCL701 potentiated immune-related AEs related to CPIs. The table below summarizes treatment-related AEs observed in the adenocarcinoma cohort.
32
Table of Contents
On November 8, 2023, we reported positive OS results from the Phase 2a portion of the trial in patients with adenocarcinoma. As of a data cutoff of September 6, 2023, among evaluable patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 29) BXCL701 in combination with pembrolizumab demonstrated a median OS of 15.5 months (95% CI 9.6–NR), and a 12-month survival rate of 59.3%.
BXCL701 as a Potential Treatment for Small Cell Lung Cancer (“SCLC”)
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2024, about 35,187 cases of SCLC will be diagnosed in the U.S. Approximately 60-70% of these patients present with extensive disease, and first-line therapy for a majority of these patients involves the combination of a CPI with platinum-based chemotherapy or etoposide.
We are encouraged by the therapeutic potential of BXCL701 for SCLC given the activity it has demonstrated in the ongoing SCNC clinical trial. We are preparing the protocol for a Phase 1b/2 trial design to be a dose-escalation safety lead-in to establish a RP2D. However, the start of any such trial is paused following the Reprioritization.
BXCL701 as a Potential Treatment for Other Cancers
In addition to its potential use in combination with CPIs to treat mCRPC, an immunologically cold tumor, we are developing BXCL701 as a therapeutic for pancreatic cancer, and other solid tumors with greater, or “non-cold,” immunological activity that are nonetheless regarded as difficult-to-treat, and hematological malignancies. We believe the synergistic potential of BXCL701 and CPIs, when administered in combination, could increase cancer cell susceptibility to an enhanced immune response, potentially increasing the clinical benefit of CPIs, whose single-agent efficacy in treating these tumor types is generally viewed to be limited to between 13% and 30% of cancer patients and the duration of response to treatment is often short. As such, we envision the potential therapeutic benefit of BXCL701 increasing the sensitivity of cold tumors to CPI therapy, enabling the potential treatment of a range of cancers including pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and ovarian cancer, as well as enhancing the depth of response to CPIs in other cancers. In addition, based on the preclinical observation that BXCL701 showed direct cytotoxic activity
33
Table of Contents
against certain leukemic cells, we have initiated clinical development targeting relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”).
Pancreatic Cancer
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2024, approximately 66,440 cases of pancreatic cancer will be diagnosed in the U.S. We are supporting a Phase 2 IST sponsored by Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (“Georgetown Lombardi”), designed to evaluate the use of BXCL701 along with pembrolizumab to treat pancreatic cancer. Few therapeutic options are available for patients with this disease, which has a five-year survival rate of less than 10%, among the lowest of all cancers. Pancreatic cancer has among the highest levels of overexpression and amplification of DPPs. Preclinical models demonstrated synergy between DPP inhibition with BXCL701 and anti-PD-1 antibody in the pancreatic cancer tumor microenvironment. Based on these preclinical observations, Georgetown Lombardi has initiated a Phase 2 IST to assess the safety of BXCL701 when administered in combination with pembrolizumab (safety lead-in), as well as to estimate the 18-week progression-free survival rate (primary objective of the efficacy phase) in previously treated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This trial started in the third quarter of 2023. On February 6, 2024, we announced the completion of patient enrollment in the safety lead-in portion of the trial. As part of the trial’s safety lead-in, the first six patients have been enrolled and will be observed for a six-week safety window period. The trial is then expected to enroll approximately 39 patients in its efficacy phase in a Simon 2-stage single-arm, open-label design (19 patients in stage 1 and 20 patients in stage 2). Patients will be monitored radiographically and by tumor markers for response assessment. Tumor biopsies and blood samples will also be collected over the course of treatment to better understand the potential mechanism of action for the combination. The human proof of concept portion of the trial is expected to start in the first half of 2024.
Relapsed or Refractory AML
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2024, about 20,800 new cases of AML will be diagnosed in the U.S. We are supporting a Phase 1b IST sponsored by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (“Dana-Farber”) designed to evaluate the use of BXCL701, along with the current standard of care to treat relapsed or refractory AML. We believe that pyroptosis triggered by BXCL701 may provide potent single agent cytotoxicity directed towards AML. We also believe that DPP9 copy number may provide an actionable biomarker, as high copy number has been observed to correlate with BXCL701 toxicity in human AML cell lines. DPP8/9 inhibition has been shown to be cytotoxic to THP-1 cells, monocytic cancer cells cultured from a patient with AML, but not other cell lines, suggesting a specific vulnerability of AML to these inhibitors which we believe can be exploited for therapeutic benefit. Based on these preclinical observations, Dana-Farber has initiated a Phase 1b trial to assess the safety of BXCL701 and to determine the maximum tolerated dose or the RP2D of BXCL701 as a single agent. This trial started in the first quarter of 2023. Subject to successful completion of this Phase 1b trial, we anticipate that Dana-Farber will conduct further studies to determine BXCL701's objective response rate in AML in combination with the standard of care.
Other Potential Anti-cancer Programs
We collaborated with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in a Phase 2a IST to evaluate the potential efficacy of BXCL701 administered in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid cancer. The design of this open label trial included two cohorts and incorporated a two-stage configuration, which allowed for an expansion of patient enrollment to a total of 17 patients in each cohort if a RECIST 1.1 complete response or partial response was observed in at least one of the initial nine patients. The first cohort enrolled patients who previously had not received CPI therapy, with a second cohort consisting of patients that were either refractory to CPI therapy or had relapsed while on CPI therapy, meaning that no further response to CPI treatment is anticipated among patients in the second cohort. Trial participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab on day 1 of a 21-day cycle, with 0.2 mg of BXCL701 administered twice-daily (“BID”) on days 1 through 7 during the first cycle, the dose increasing to 0.3 mg BID on Days 8 through 14 during the first and the subsequent cycles. Evaluable trial participants were required to receive a minimum of two treatment cycles. A preliminary assessment of BXCL701 dosed in combination with a CPI, as of completion of the first stage, noted responses in one patient in each of the CPI naïve and CPI refractory/relapsed cohorts, including a partial response in CPI-naïve, microsatellite stable endometrial carcinoma, PD-L1 negative (CPS <1) and a partial response in CPI-refractory uveal melanoma. These preliminary results were presented at the 2021
34
Table of Contents
American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (ASCO 2021). Patient enrollment in this trial was completed in the third quarter of 2022.
We believe BXCL701 may have potential application in breast cancer, as its use in combination with monoclonal antibody therapy generated encouraging in vivo data in a preclinical disease model where enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity was observed.
The FDA has granted BXCL701 orphan drug designation for the treatment of AML, stage IIb to IV melanoma, pancreatic cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma. As we consider BXCL701’s therapeutic potential for additional indications that represent unmet medical needs, we intend to apply for additional orphan drug designations for BXCL701.
Biomarker Development Initiatives Intended to Complement BXCL701 Administration
We are also actively engaged in the identification and development of predictive biomarkers that we believe could be used in conjunction with BXCL701 to predict the likelihood of patient response to therapy across the range of targeted indications. Based on preliminary data from AML patients, we believe DPP9 copy number could correlate to BXCL701 response rate, with a greater likelihood of BXCL701 cytotoxicity in patients with increased DPP9 copy number. We are pursuing its use in our biomarker discovery activities as a potential companion diagnostic. At the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 38 th Annual Meeting (SITC 2023), we presented data from the Phase 2a trial in SCNC patients, which indicated DPP9 overexpression is a potential response-predictive biomarker of BXCL701 and pembrolizumab combination treatment in mCRPC patients with SCNC phenotype.
Immuno-Oncology Manufacturing
We rely on third party contract manufacturing organizations to support development and manufacture of product candidates for our clinical trials, and, if any of our current or future product candidates receives marketing approval, we expect to rely on such manufacturers to meet commercial demand. We expect this strategy will enable us to maintain a more efficient infrastructure, avoiding dependence on our own manufacturing facility and equipment, while simultaneously enabling us to focus our expertise on the clinical development and future commercialization of our products. Currently, the Patheon pharma services division of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and another third-party contract manufacturer supply the drug substance and clinical trial supplies for BXCL701, and we expect to enter into commercial supply agreements with such manufacturers prior to any potential approval of BXCL701.
BXCL701 drug product is manufactured via conventional pharmaceutical processing procedures, employing commercially available excipients and packaging materials. The procedure and equipment employed for manufacture and analysis are consistent with standard organic synthesis or pharmaceutical production, and are transferable to a range of manufacturing facilities, if needed. We have selected a larger third-party drug product manufacturer and will be executing technology transfer of drug product manufacture to a larger manufacturer. We also plan to maintain the current drug substance and product manufacturer as part of our supply chain strategy.
Immuno-Oncology Competition
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have made substantial investments in recent years into the rapid development of novel immunotherapies for the treatment of a range of pathologies, including infectious diseases and cancers, making this a highly competitive market. We believe BXCL701 is the only innate immune system activator in clinical development specifically addressing the cold tumor problem in immuno-oncology.
We face substantial competition from multiple sources, including large and specialty pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research institutions and governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Our competitors compete with us on the level of the technologies employed, or on the level of development of product candidates. In addition, many small biotechnology companies have formed collaborations with large, established companies to (i) obtain support for their research, development, and commercialization of products or (ii) combine several treatment approaches to develop longer lasting or more efficacious treatments that may potentially directly compete with our current or future product candidates. We anticipate that we
35
Table of Contents
will continue to face increasing competition as new therapies and combinations thereof, technologies, and data emerge within the field of immunotherapy and, furthermore, within the treatment of infectious diseases and cancers.
In addition to the current standard of care treatments for patients with infectious diseases or cancers, numerous commercial and academic preclinical studies and clinical trials are being undertaken by a large number of parties to assess novel technologies and product candidates in the field of immunotherapy. Results from these studies and trials have fueled increasing levels of interest in the field of immunotherapy.
Large pharmaceutical companies that have commercialized or are developing immunotherapies to treat cancer include AstraZeneca AB, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
We face significant competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that target specific tumor-associated antigens using immune cells or other cytotoxic modalities. These generally include immune cell redirecting therapeutics such as T cell engagers, adoptive cellular therapies such as CAR-Ts, antibody drug conjugates, targeted radiopharmaceuticals, targeted immunotoxin, and targeted cancer vaccines.
Clinical stage companies that compete with us directly on the level of the development of product candidates targeting the innate immune system include Amgen Inc., Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Bristol- Myers Squibb Company, Ryvu Therapeutics, Merck & Co., Inc., Replimune Group Inc., Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis AG, Xbiotech Inc., Stingthera, Inc., AstraZeneca AB, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Aravive, Inc. Clinical stage companies that compete with us directly on the level of the development of product candidates targeting the mCRPC include Astellas Pharma Inc., Pfizer Inc., Bayer AG, Janssen, Sanofi S.A., Clovis Oncology, Inc., AstraZeneca AB, Merck & Co., Inc., GSK plc, Tempest Therapeutics, Inc., Zenith Epigenetics Ltd. and Gossamer Bio, Inc. Clinical stage companies that compete with us directly on the level of the development of product candidates utilizing the therapeutic potential of synthetic lethality include Repare Therapeutics Inc., IDEAYA Biosciences, Inc. and Tango Therapeutics, Inc.
Many of our competitors, either alone or in combination with their respective strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, the regulatory approval process, and marketing than we do. Mergers and acquisition activity in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology sector is likely to result in greater resource concentration among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through sizeable collaborative arrangements with 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 one or more of our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, better tolerated, or of greater convenience or economic benefit than our proposed product offerings. Our competitors also may be in a position to obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly, resulting in a stronger or dominant market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be product safety, efficacy, convenience and treatment cost.
Immuno-Oncology Intellectual Property
Intellectual property is of vital importance in our field and in biotechnology generally. We seek to protect and enhance proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business by seeking, maintaining, enforcing, and defending patent and other intellectual property rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We will also seek to rely on regulatory protection afforded through inclusion in expedited development and review, data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions where available.
As of February 29, 2024, we have multiple patent families filed to protect our immuno-oncology program, including our core patent family directed to methods of using BXCL701 with immune checkpoint inhibitors, which is granted in the U.S., Japan, Australia, Canada, Russia, China, South Africa, Mexico, New Zealand, and United Arab Emirates, and
36
Table of Contents
with at least one pending application in the U.S., China, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Russia, Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Europe. Patents issued from this family, if any, are expected to expire no earlier than 2036. We have one additional patent issued in the U.S. directed to a method of selecting patients based on a biomarker, with an expected expiration date no earlier than 2039.
Additional applications are directed to administering BXCL701 in combinations with various other molecules, biomarkers, and dosing regimens. We also have four provisional applications directed to novel formulations of BXCL701, various dosing regimens, methods of use, and combination therapies. We expect that patents issued from these applications, if any, will expire from 2039 to 2044.
We expect to file additional patent applications in support of current and new immuno-oncology clinical candidates as well as new platform and core technologies. For additional information regarding intellectual property regulations and risks, see above under “—Neuroscience—Neuroscience Intellectual Property” and Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
Our Relationship with BioXcel LLC
BioXcel LLC currently holds an ownership interest of approximately 29% in the Company and our pipeline compounds were identified by applying our growing internal AI capabilities, along with BioXcel LLC’s EvolverAI, a proprietary pharmaceutical discovery and development engine, for drug re-innovation.
We entered into the Amended and Restated Asset Contribution Agreement (the “Contribution Agreement”), pursuant to which BioXcel LLC, agreed to contribute BioXcel LLC’s rights, title and interest in BXCL501, BXCL701, BXCL502 and BXCL702, and all of the assets and liabilities associated in consideration for (i) 9,480,000 shares of our common stock, (ii) $1 million upon completion of an initial public offering, (iii) $500,000 upon the later of the 12-month anniversary of an initial public offering and the first dosing of a patient in the bridging bioavailability/bioequivalence study for the BXCL501 program, (iv) $500,000 upon the later of the 12 month anniversary of an initial public offering and the first dosing of a patient in the Phase 2 proof of concept open-label monotherapy or combination trial with Keytruda for the BXCL701 program and (v) a one-time payment of $5 million within 60 days after the achievement of $50 million in cumulative net sales of any product or combination of products resulting from the development and commercialization of any one of the contributed product candidates or a product derived therefrom. As of December 31, 2023, all of the foregoing have been paid except for (v).
We entered into a Separation and Shared Services Agreement with BioXcel LLC that took effect on June 30, 2017, as amended and restated thereafter (the “Services Agreement”), pursuant to which services provided by BioXcel LLC through its subsidiaries in India and the U.S. will continue indefinitely, as agreed upon by the parties. These services include certain intellectual property prosecution and management and research and development activities. The Company has an option, exercisable until December 31, 2024, to enter into a collaborative services agreement with BioXcel LLC pursuant to which BioXcel LLC shall perform product identification and related services for us utilizing EvolverAI, its proprietary pharmaceutical discovery and development engine. To maintain the ability to exercise the foregoing option, pursuant to an amendment to the Services Agreement effective as of April 19, 2022, the Company has agreed to pay BioXcel LLC $18,000 per month from March 13, 2023 to December 31, 2024. The parties are obligated to negotiate the collaborative services agreement in good faith and to incorporate reasonable market-based terms, including consideration for BioXcel LLC reflecting a low, single-digit royalty on net sales and reasonable development and commercialization milestone payments, provided that (i) development milestone payments shall not exceed $10 million in the aggregate and not be payable prior to proof of concept in humans and (ii) commercialization milestone payments shall be based on reaching annual net sales levels, be limited to 3% of the applicable net sales level, and not exceed $30 million in the aggregate.
Service charges recorded under the Services Agreement were $1.3 million and $1.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively.
37
Table of Contents
Government Regulation
Government Regulation and Product Approval
Government authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of drug products. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before it may be legally marketed in the U.S. We, along with any third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our products and product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable U.S. federal, state, and local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.
U.S. Drug Development Process
In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and its implementing regulations. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:
● completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies, and formulation studies in accordance with FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice requirements and other applicable regulations;
● submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
● approval by an independent Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) or ethics committee at each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated;
● performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practices (“GCPs”) to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use;
● preparation of and submission to the FDA of an NDA after completion of all pivotal clinical trials;
● a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA to file the application for review;
● satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;
● satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) requirements to assure that the facilities, methods, and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity, and potential inspection of selected clinical investigation sites to assess compliance with GCPs; and
● FDA review and approval of the NDA to permit commercial marketing of the product for specified indications for use in the U.S.
Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the U.S., a sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for allowance from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before any clinical trials can begin. Submission of an IND may or may not result in FDA allowance to begin a clinical trial.
38
Table of Contents
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. While the IND is active, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and its investigators for actual or suspected serious and adverse events, along with any findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs and findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, as well as any clinically important increased incidence of a suspected serious adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.
Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether a study can move forward at designated check points, based on access to data from the study, and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other for other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend 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 has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
● Phase 1: The product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness.
● Phase 2: The product candidate is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule, and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials.
● Phase 3: The product candidate is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product labeling.
In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be conducted after initial marketing approval and may be used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.
Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and 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 candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
39
Table of Contents
In addition, during the development of a drug, sponsors are given opportunities to periodically meet with or seek feedback from the FDA. These interactions may be requested, for example, prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. These interactions can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach alignment on the next phase of development.
U.S. Review and Approval Process
Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, including results from preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.
The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once filed, the FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the filing date to complete a standard review of an NDA for a drug that is a new molecular entity, and of ten months from the date of NDA receipt to complete a standard review of an NDA for a drug that is not a new molecular entity.
The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that review, evaluate and provide a recommendation as to whether the NDA should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.
Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMP and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs.
After the FDA evaluates an NDA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”). An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing and sale of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, including additional clinical trials, or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA or, address all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.
If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for specific indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other
40
Table of Contents
risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. The FDA may also require one or more post-market studies and additional surveillance programs to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.
In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs and supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.
Expedited Development and Review Programs
The FDA offers expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. For example, the Fast Track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing product candidates that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a Fast Track product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the NDA may be eligible for priority review. An NDA for a Fast Track product candidate may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.
A product candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product candidate can receive Breakthrough Therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, 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 Breakthrough Therapy designation includes the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers.
Any application for a drug submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product candidate with a Fast Track designation and/or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may be eligible for other FDA review programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review. An NDA is eligible for priority review if the product candidate is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available alternatives for such disease or condition. For new-molecular-entity NDAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the application within six months of the 60-day filing date, or with respect to non-new-molecular-entity NDAs, within six months of the NDA receipt date.
Additionally, depending on the design of the applicable clinical studies, product candidates studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval,
41
Table of Contents
the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled confirmatory clinical studies to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, and may require that such confirmatory studies be underway prior to granting accelerated approval. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required confirmatory studies or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the relevant product.
Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but such designations may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions to qualify for such program or may decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or a patient population greater than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug in the U.S. will be recovered from sales in the U.S. for that drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA.
If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same drug for the same disease or condition for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research costs and a waiver of the NDA user fee.
A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the disease or condition for which it received orphan designation. In addition, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or, as noted above, if a second applicant demonstrates that its product is clinically superior to the approved product with orphan exclusivity or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.
Post-approval Requirements
Drug products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse events, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors 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, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.
42
Table of Contents
The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:
● Restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market, or product recalls;
● fines, warning letters, or untitled letters;
● clinical holds on clinical studies;
● refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of product approvals;
● product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products;
● consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal health care programs;
● mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information;
● the issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases, and other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; or
● injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturers’ communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labelling.
Hatch-Waxman Act
Section 505 of the FDCA describes three types of marketing applications that may be submitted to the FDA to request marketing authorization for a new drug. A Section 505(b)(1) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy. A 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. This regulatory pathway enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA's prior findings of safety and efficacy for an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. Section 505(j) establishes an abbreviated approval process for a generic version of approved drug products through the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”). An ANDA provides for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, performance characteristics and intended use, among other things, to a previously approved product. ANDAs are termed "abbreviated" because they are generally not required to include preclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data to establish safety and efficacy. Instead, generic applicants must scientifically demonstrate that their product is
43
Table of Contents
bioequivalent to, or performs in the same manner as, the innovator drug through in vitro, in vivo, or other testing. The generic version must deliver the same amount of active ingredients into a subject's bloodstream in the same amount of time as the innovator drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug. In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant's drug or a method of using the drug. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA's Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA.
Upon submission of an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA, an applicant must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except where the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent through the last type of certification (a “paragraph IV certification”). If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all of the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must send notice of the paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the paragraph IV certification. If the paragraph IV certification is challenged by an NDA holder or the patent owner(s) asserts a patent challenge to the paragraph IV certification, the FDA may not approve that application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the notice of the paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in the applicant's favor or settled, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. In instances where an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant files a paragraph IV certification, the NDA holder or patent owner(s) regularly take action to trigger the 30-month stay, recognizing that the related patent litigation may take many months or years to resolve. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA could be delayed for a significant period of time depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor's decision to initiate patent litigation.
The Hatch-Waxman Act establishes periods of non-patent regulatory exclusivity for certain approved drug products, during which the FDA cannot approve (or in some cases accept) an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application that relies on the branded reference drug. For example, the holder of an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, may obtain five years of non-patent data exclusivity upon approval of a new drug containing new chemical entities that have not been previously approved by the FDA. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The Hatch-Waxman Act also provides three years of non-patent exclusivity to the holder of an NDA (including a 505(b)(2) NDA) for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical studies (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted or sponsored by the applicant. This three-year exclusivity period protects against FDA approval of ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDAs for the condition of the new drug's approval. As a general matter, the three-year exclusivity does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.
FDA Approval and Regulation of Medical Devices and Companion Diagnostics
If safe and effective use of a therapeutic depends on an in vitro diagnostic, then the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of that diagnostic, known as a companion diagnostic, at the same time that the FDA approves the therapeutic product. In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, if the FDA determines that a
44
Table of Contents
companion diagnostic device is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic product or indication, the FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic product or new therapeutic product indication if the companion diagnostic device is not approved or cleared for that indication. Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population.
Under the FDCA, in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the U.S., 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 applies, medical devices, including companion diagnostic tests, require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution.
The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification (“510(k) clearance”) and premarket approval (“PMA”). To obtain 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification submission demonstrating that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a legally marketed predicate device. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to twelve months but may take longer. The FDA may require additional information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device currently on the market, it will grant 510(k) clearance to commercially market the device. If the FDA determines that the device is “not substantially equivalent” to a previously cleared device, the device is automatically designated as a Class III (i.e., high-risk) device. The device sponsor must then fulfill more rigorous PMA requirements or can request a risk-based classification determination for the device in accordance with the “de novo” process, which is a route to market for novel medical devices that are low to moderate risk and are not substantially equivalent to a predicate device.
After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change or modification in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or depending on the modification, approval of a PMA application or de novo classification. The FDA requires each manufacturer to determine whether the proposed change requires submission of a 510(k), de novo classification or a PMA in the first instance, but the FDA can review any such decision and disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or request the recall of the modified device until it receives 510(k) clearance, approval of a PMA application, or issuance of a de novo classification. Also, in these circumstances, the manufacturer may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.
The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. In addition, PMAs for certain devices must generally include the results from extensive preclinical and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the device for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. In particular, for a diagnostic, a PMA application typically requires data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of the PMA review, the FDA will typically inspect the manufacturer’s facilities for compliance with the QSR which imposes elaborate testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance requirements.
Approval of a PMA is not guaranteed, and the FDA may ultimately respond to a PMA submission with a not approvable determination based on deficiencies in the application and require additional clinical trial or other data that may be expensive and time-consuming to generate and that can substantially delay approval. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA application is favorable, the FDA typically issues an approvable letter requiring the applicant’s agreement to specific conditions, such as changes in labeling, or specific additional information, such as submission of final labeling, in order to secure final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA 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 approvable. The FDA may also determine that additional clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA may be delayed for several
45
Table of Contents
months or years while the trials are conducted and then the data submitted in an amendment to the PMA. If the FDA concludes that the applicable criteria have been met, the FDA will issue a PMA for the approved indications, which can be more limited than those originally sought by the applicant. The PMA can include post-approval conditions that the FDA believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution. Once granted, approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards are not maintained, or problems are identified following initial marketing.
After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QSR, which currently cover the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the U.S.
In January 2024, the FDA announced that it intends to initiate the process to reclassify most in vitro diagnostic tests (“IVDs”) that are currently Class III into Class II, including companion diagnostics. If such reclassification efforts occur, any companion diagnostics that are the subject of the down-classification may no longer require premarket approval, but rather may become subject to the generally less burdensome 510(k) clearance process.
International Regulations
In addition to regulations in the U.S., we are and will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, post-marketing requirements, and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. We must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of any products in those countries. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing, and reimbursement vary from country to country. Failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecution.
Non-Clinical Studies and Clinical Trials
Similar to the U.S., the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.
Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice (“GLP”) as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products, e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.
Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines on GCP as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU countries, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.
The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”) which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became
46
Table of Contents
applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.
While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application (“CTA”) to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.
The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the EU Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the EU Clinical Trials Directive remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.
During the development of a medicinal product, the EMA and national regulators provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EMA level, this is usually done in the form of scientific advice, which is given by the Scientific Advice Working Party of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”). A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure. Advice from the EMA is typically provided based on questions concerning, for example, quality (chemistry, manufacturing and controls testing), nonclinical testing and clinical trials, and pharmacovigilance plans and risk-management programs. Advice is not legally binding to any future MA application (“MAA”) of the product concerned.
Marketing Authorization
In order to market our product candidates in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EU, medicinal products candidates can only be placed on the market after obtaining a MA. To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate in the EU, we must submit a MAA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs:
● “Centralized MA”: are issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure based on the opinion of the EMA’s CHMP and are valid throughout the EU. The centralized procedure is compulsory for certain types of medicinal products such as (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV or AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases, (iii) designated orphan medicinal products, and (iv) advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”) such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized procedure is optional for product candidates containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for product candidates that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.
● “National MA”: are issued by the competent authorities of the EU member states, only cover their respective territory, and are available for product candidates not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized MAs. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in an EU member state, 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
47
Table of Contents
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.
Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA by the EMA is 210 days. This excludes so-called clock stops, during which additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. At the end of the review period, the CHMP provides an opinion to the European Commission. If this opinion is favorable, the European Commission may then adopt a decision to grant an MA. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of a MAA in no more than 150 days (not including clock stops). Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the Breakthrough Therapy designation in the U.S. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated contact and rapporteur from the CHMP is appointed early in the PRIME scheme, facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s committee level. An initial meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.
MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Once renewed, the MA is valid for an unlimited period unless the European Commission or the national competent authority decides on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal.
Data and Marketing Exclusivity
The EU also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. Upon receiving an MA, reference product generally receives eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the pre-clinical 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. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.
Orphan Medicinal Products
The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the U.S. A medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (3) there exists 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 will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition.
The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the MAA. Orphan designation entitles a party to incentives such as fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the Centralized MA process. Upon grant of a MA, orphan medicinal products are entitled to 10 years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During the 10-year market exclusivity period, the competent authorities cannot accept a MAA, or grant a
48
Table of Contents
MA, or accept an application to extend a MA, for the same indication, in respect of a similar medicinal product. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”). No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.
The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, a MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (1) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective, or otherwise clinically superior; (2) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (3) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.
Failure to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines, and criminal penalties.
The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey, as well as cooperating countries Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia.
Since the end of the Brexit transition period on January 1, 2021, Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) has not been directly subject to EU laws, however under the terms of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol, EU laws generally apply to Northern Ireland. The EU laws that have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation remain applicable in Great Britain, however new legislation such as the EU CTR is not applicable in Great Britain (“GB”).
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”) became effective on January 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”) inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations.
Other Foreign Regulations
For other countries outside of Europe, 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. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP 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.
Regulation of Companion Diagnostics
In the EU, in vitro diagnostic medical devices were regulated by Directive 98/79/EC, which regulated the placing on the market, the CE marking, the essential requirements, the conformity assessment procedures, the registration obligations for manufacturers and devices, as well as the vigilance procedure. In vitro diagnostic medical devices had to comply with the requirements provided for in the Directive, and with further requirements implemented at national level (as the case may be).
49
Table of Contents
The regulation of companion diagnostics is subject to further requirements since in-vitro medical diagnostic devices Regulation (No 2017/746) (“IVDR”) became applicable on May 26, 2022. The IVDR applies since May 26, 2022, but there is a tiered system extending the grace period for many devices (depending on their risk classification) before they have to be fully compliant with the Regulation.
The IVDR introduced a new classification system for companion diagnostics, which are now specifically defined as diagnostic tests that support the safe and effective use of a specific medicinal product, by identifying patients that are suitable or unsuitable for treatment. Companion diagnostics will have to undergo a conformity assessment by a notified body. Before it can issue an EU certificate, the notified body must seek a scientific opinion from the EMA on the suitability of the companion diagnostic to the medicinal product concerned if the medicinal product falls exclusively within the scope of the centralized procedure process for the authorization of medicines, or the medicinal product is already authorized through the centralized procedure process, or an MAA for the medicinal product has been submitted through the centralized procedure process. For other substances, the notified body can seek the opinion from a national competent authority or the EMA.
The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA.
Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement
Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of drug products for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the U.S. and other countries, sales of products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers, and other organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the drug product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.
Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Member states are free to restrict the range of pharmaceutical products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and reimbursement levels of pharmaceutical products for human use. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, new products are facing increasingly high barriers to entry. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.
The marketability of products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, an increasing emphasis on managed care in the U.S. has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is secured for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
50
Table of Contents
To raise sufficient financial resources to commercialize our approved products and continue to advance our product candidates, we will need to address pricing pressures and potential third-party reimbursement coverage for our approved products and product candidates. In the U.S. and elsewhere, sales of pharmaceutical products depend in significant part on the availability of reimbursement to the consumer from third-party payors, such as government payors, like Medicare and Medicaid, and private insurance plans. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. It is and will continue to be time consuming and expensive for us or our strategic collaborators to go through the process of seeking reimbursement from Medicare and private payors. Our products may not be considered cost-effective, and coverage and reimbursement may not be available or sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a competitive and profitable basis.
Healthcare Reform
We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and other federal and state government pricing programs in the U.S., and we may participate in additional government pricing programs in the future. The U.S. government and other governments have shown significant interest in pursuing health care reform, which has resulted in changes to these programs and impacts IGALMI TM and our product candidates that may be approved. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) was enacted and substantially changed the way health care is financed in the U.S. by both government and private insurers. Among other cost containment measures, the ACA established:
● an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents;
● a Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which pharmaceutical manufacturers who wish to have their drugs covered under Part D must offer discounts to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, or the “donut hole”; and
● a new formula that increases the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.
Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. In addition, we expect that federal, state, and local governments in the U.S. will continue to consider legislation to limit the growth of health care costs, including the cost of prescription drugs. Future legislation could limit payments for pharmaceuticals such as IGALMI TM and the product candidates that we are developing.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which will remain in effect through 2032, absent additional congressional action. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. More recently, in March 2021, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which, among other things, eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, effective January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at a drugs average manufacturer price.
Most significantly, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) into law. This statute marks the most significant action by Congress with respect to the pharmaceutical industry since adoption of the ACA in 2010. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations. HHS has issued and will continue to issue guidance implementing the IRA, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. While the
51
Table of Contents
impact of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry and our business cannot yet be fully determined, it is likely to be significant.
In addition, individual U.S. states have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, mechanisms to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices.
Future legislation could limit payments for pharmaceuticals such as IGALMI TM and the product candidates that we are developing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressures. The implementation of cost-containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products.
Other Health Care Laws and Compliance Requirements
For approved products, we may be subject to various federal, state, and foreign laws targeting fraud and abuse in the health care industry. Such laws include, without limitation, U.S. federal and state anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, consumer fraud, and transparency laws and regulations with respect to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other health care professionals, as well as similar foreign laws in jurisdictions outside the U.S.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending, or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal health care program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for health care items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
The federal False Claims Act imposes liability on any person who, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal health care program. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. The “qui tam” provisions of the False Claims Act allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted a false claim to the federal government, and to share in any monetary recovery. In addition, various states have enacted false claims laws analogous to the False Claims Act. Many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payer and not merely a federal health care program. When an entity is determined to have violated the False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus significant civil penalties for each separate false claim.
Also, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) created several federal crimes, including health care fraud, and false statements relating to health care matters. The health care fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private third-party payers. The false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.
The Physician Payment Sunshine Act (the “Sunshine Act”), which was enacted as part of the ACA, requires applicable manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, or medical supplies covered under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, to report annually to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services payments or other transfers of value made by that entity, or by a third-party as directed by that entity, to
52
Table of Contents
physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors), certain non-physician providers including physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and teaching hospitals, or to third parties on behalf of such providers, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members during the course of the preceding calendar year. Failure to comply with the reporting requirements can result in significant civil monetary penalties for any payment or other transfer of value that is not reported.
Moreover, analogous state and foreign laws and regulations may be broader in scope than the provisions described above and may apply regardless of payor. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and relevant federal government compliance guidance; require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other health care providers, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, thus further complicating compliance efforts; and restrict marketing practices or require disclosure of marketing expenditures and pricing information.
Violations of any of these laws or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply include, without limitation, significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.
Data Privacy & Security
Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the U.S., numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws, including HIPAA, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain state and non-U.S. laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing. Additionally, our use of AI and machine learning may be subject to laws and evolving regulations regarding the use of AI or machine learning, controlling for data bias, and anti-discrimination.
Human Capital
Our Employees
In August 2023, our Board of Directors approved the Reprioritization. Following a comprehensive review of the business, we determined to focus on high-potential agitation-market opportunities using our innovative, AI-based clinical drug development platforms. We intend to reduce more than 50% of our cash burn, as compared to our cash burn levels during the second quarter of 2023, to approximately $80 million on a go-forward annualized basis. As part of the Reprioritization, our Board of Directors approved a reduction of approximately 60% of our workforce, from approximately 190 to 80 employees. These actions also included a shift in commercial strategy for IGALMI™ in the institutional setting, a reduction of in-hospital commercialization expenses, a suspension of programs no longer deemed core to our business, and a shift in focus to develop BXCL501 for use in the at-home setting in the treatment of agitation in schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and in patients with mild to moderate dementia due to probable Alzheimer’s disease. We recorded restructuring costs of $4.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2023, including severance and benefit costs of $4.1 million and contract termination costs of $0.1 million, substantially all of which were paid in 2023. As of December 31, 2023, we had 74 full-time employees. We also leverage certain experts in drug development and AI that are employed by BioXcel LLC to provide flexibility for our business needs.
53
Table of Contents
Our Culture
We believe that the success of our human capital management investments is evidenced by our low employee turnover, a number which is regularly reviewed by our Board of Directors as part of their oversight of our human capital strategy.
Employee Engagement, Talent Development & Benefits
We believe that our future success largely depends upon our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. We provide our employees with competitive salaries, bonuses, opportunities for equity ownership and other comparable benefits for our industry.
Employee and Visitor Safety Protocols
We follow health and safety guidelines to protect the well-being of our employees and visitors.
Diversity & Inclusion
Much of our success is rooted in the diversity of our teams and our commitment to inclusion. We value diversity at all levels and continue to focus on extending our diversity and inclusion initiatives across our entire workforce. We believe that our business benefits from the different perspectives a diverse workforce brings, and we pride ourselves on having a strong, inclusive and positive culture based on our shared mission and values.
Our Corporate Information
The Company was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on March 29, 2017. Our principal executive offices are located at 555 Long Wharf Drive, New Haven, CT 06511 and our telephone number is (475) 238-6837.
Available Information
Our website address is www.bioxceltherapeutics.com. The contents of, or information accessible through, our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We make our filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports, available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC.
We may use our website as a distribution channel of material information about the Company. Financial and other important information regarding the Company is routinely posted on and accessible through the Investors & Media sections of our website at www.bioxceltherapeutics.com. In addition, you may automatically receive email alerts and other information about the Company when you enroll your email address by visiting the “Email Alerts” option under the News / Events menu of the Investors & Media section of our website at www.bioxceltherapeutics.com.
The reference to our website address does not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on or available through our website, and you should not consider such information to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
54
Table of Contents