Item 1. Business
Item 1. Business
Overview
We are a specialty pharmaceutical company committed to being the leader in responsible pain management. Our portfolio includes Xtampza ER, an abuse-deterrent, extended-release, oral formulation of oxycodone and Nucynta ER and Nucynta IR (collectively, the “Nucynta Products”), which are extended-release (“ER”) and immediate-release (“IR”) formulations of tapentadol. Xtampza ER was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in April 2016 for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate. We commercially launched Xtampza ER in June 2016.
Nucynta ER is indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment, including neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in adults, and for which alternate treatment options are inadequate. Nucynta IR is indicated for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate in adults. We initially licensed the right to commercialize the Nucynta Products in the United States through a Commercialization Agreement with Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly known as Depomed) (“Assertio”) entered into in December 2017 (the “Nucynta Commercialization Agreement”) and began marketing the Nucynta Products in February 2018. On February 13, 2020, we closed our acquisition of certain assets related to the Nucynta Products, including the right to commercialize the Nucynta Products in the United States and certain regulatory and supply chain assets (the “Nucynta Acquisition”), from Assertio for an aggregate purchase price of $375.0 million, subject to certain adjustments as set forth in the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of February 6, 2020, between us and Assertio (the “Nucynta Purchase Agreement”) .
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, we generated $310.0 million in net revenues, comprised of $128.0 million from sales of Xtampza ER and $182.0 million from sales of the Nucynta Products.
The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted global economic activity, and federal and state governments, as well as numerous foreign countries, have reacted to the outbreak by instituting quarantines, mandating business and school closures and restricting travel. The travel restrictions and “social distancing” recommendations resulting from the spread of COVID-19, as well as the closure or limited operations of many physicians’ offices, have impacted our sales professionals’ ability to travel to and meet with healthcare providers in person. As of the date of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the COVID-19 pandemic and actions taken to contain it have impacted revenue (due to fewer new patients beginning therapy with our products and the pandemic’s adverse impact on our ability to promote products) and decreased certain operating expenses, including travel, marketing and expenses associated with participation in congresses that have been postponed. We believe that the disruptions caused by COVID-19 will continue in the near term, and there remains substantial uncertainty as to when such disruptions will cease (or ease).
Pain, Pain Management and Opioid Abuse in the United States
Acute and Chronic Pain
Pain can be classified along many different variables, including severity, duration and etiology. There are two broad categories of pain based on duration: acute pain, or pain that is self-limited and generally requires treatment for no more than up to a few weeks, and chronic pain, or pain that lasts beyond the healing of an injury or that persists longer than 3-6 months. According to a 2019 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) report, it is estimated that chronic pain affects at least 40 million U.S. adults annually, with at least 14 million of those adults experiencing high impact chronic pain, defined as chronic pain that interferes with daily life or work activities most days or every day. Acute pain is even more prevalent and can occur after an injury, burn, trauma or surgery.
Chronic pain leads to over $560 billion in healthcare and productivity costs annually, according to a 2011 report from the Institute of Medicine. In addition, studies suggest that healthcare costs for people suffering from chronic pain are higher, and often substantially higher, than for those without chronic pain.
3
Table of Contents
The Role of Prescription Opioids in the Treatment of Pain
Prescription opioids continue to serve as important tools in the treatment of acute and chronic pain where alternative treatments have been inadequate. Prescription opioids are available in immediate-release formulations as well as in extended-release formulations, which incorporate a time-release mechanism designed to deliver steady amounts of opioid, typically over 12 to 24 hours. Extended-release opioids are designed to offer more convenient dosing with a longer period of consistent blood levels of the active drug as compared to immediate-release formulations.
In 2020, there were approximately 157.1 million prescriptions for opioids written in the United States, representing an 8% decline from 2019 levels and including approximately 3.2 million prescriptions for branded extended-release opioids, approximately 13.1 million prescriptions for generic extended-release opioids, and greater than 140.8 million prescriptions for immediate-release opioids. After marked increases in opioid prescriptions from 2000 to 2015, prescriptions have decreased each year since 2015, correlated with rising awareness of the extent and impact of the opioid crisis. Prescription levels for 2020 represent a return to levels similar to these seen in the year 2000, when 143.8 million prescriptions for opioid were written in the United States, including 11.4 million prescriptions for extended-release opioids and 132.3 million prescriptions for immediate-release opioids
Increasingly, practitioners and regulators are focusing on multidisciplinary, multimodal approaches to pain management, including exercise, physical therapy and psychotherapy, and opioid and non-opioid medications. Recognizing the role that opioid therapy continues to play in effective management of moderate to severe pain in appropriate patients, these groups are advocating for best practices that support appropriate opioid prescribing practices that may help mitigate the risks of abuse, addiction and other adverse events to patients.
Prescription Opioid Abuse in the United States
Prescription opioids of all kinds, including both immediate-release and extended-release formulations, are subject to manipulation, misuse, and abuse. Besides their accepted uses for analgesia, opioids produce a general sense of well-being or euphoria by reducing tension, anxiety, and aggression. These effects contribute to the attractiveness of opioids for abuse and, indeed, the CDC has described abuse of prescription drugs in the United States as a vast and deadly epidemic. The beginning of the opioid overdose epidemic in the late 1990s was marked by a rise in prescription opioid overdose deaths. For a variety of reasons, heroin use began increasing in the mid-2000s, and had surpassed prescription opioids as a cause of opioid-related overdose by 2016, reaching a rate of 4.9 per 100,000 persons in 2018. Meanwhile, the predominant opioid cause of death in 2018 involved synthetic opioids other than methadone. While opioid-involved overdose deaths declined slightly in 2018 (in contrast to the sharp increases during 2014 to 2017), the number of drug overdose deaths was still four times higher in 2018 than in 1999. Moreover, and despite the decrease in prescription opioid utilization, the rate of opioid-involved overdose deaths rose slightly again in 2019 (from 20.7 per 100,000 to 21.6), and there are early indications that widespread social isolation, coupled with reduced access to harm reduction services, has been correlated with a substantial upswing in such deaths beginning in early 2020.
The opioid epidemic has, in addition to its death toll, imposed significant burdens on the U.S. healthcare system. In 2016, there were an estimated 91,840 hospitalizations and 197,970 emergency department visits for opioid-related poisonings in the United States. A nonprofit group that studies the health economy recently estimated that the opioid epidemic has cost the United States more than a trillion dollars since 2001, based on CDC mortality data through June 2017. The greatest financial cost of the epidemic, according to the report, is in lost earnings and productivity losses to employers.
Despite the reduction in opioid prescriptions in recent years and the heightened awareness of the risks associated with opioid use, abuse of prescription opioids, including extended-release formulations, continues to be a major public health issue. In 2019, an estimated 10.1million, or 3.7% of persons aged 12 and older, reported opioid misuse in the prior year.
Extended-release opioids may be especially attractive to people who abuse opioids because, if the extended release mechanism can be defeated through tampering, many extended-release products quickly deliver a relatively large amount of active pharmaceutical ingredient (an effect known as “dose dumping”). By manipulating these products, therefore, people who abuse opioids achieve a more intense euphoria as a result of rapid increases in the blood concentration of the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
4
Table of Contents
In response to issues surrounding abuse of prescription opioids, pharmaceutical companies have developed novel, abuse-deterrent formulation strategies. Abuse-deterrent formulations, including the DETERx platform that is incorporated in Xtampza ER, target the known or expected routes of abuse, such as crushing in order to snort or dissolving in order to inject, for the specific opioid drug substance. The FDA has encouraged the development of prescription opioids with abuse-deterrent formulations to help combat the opioid crisis, and expanding access to abuse deterrent formulations is part of the FDA’s comprehensive Opioids Action Plan. These technologies, however, do not eliminate the possibility of misuse and abuse. Moreover, no abuse deterrence technology, including DETERx, is able to deter the most common form of abuse—swallowing a number of intact capsules or tablets to achieve a feeling of euphoria.
Legislative and Regulatory Actions
In response to widespread prescription opioid abuse, the U.S. government and a number of state legislatures have in recent years enacted new legislation and regulations intended to fight the opioid epidemic. At the federal level (in addition to the DEA and FDA efforts discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K), in 2016 the CDC issued prescribing guidelines intended to reduce opioid-related harms by encouraging primary care physicians to limit the amount of morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) that they prescribe for chronic pain patients.
While much, if not most, of the state level efforts have focused primarily on increasing people’s access to substance abuse treatment and harm reduction measures, some initiatives more directly impact manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioid products; these laws include requirements that manufacturers fund statewide drug take-back programs or pay opioid-specific taxes or “impact fees” and laws that limit the amount of opioid products that a physician may prescribe. Recent years have also seen a variety of proposed and enacted laws and regulations at the federal, state and local level intended to reduce, or limit increases in, pharmaceutical prices, including particularly prescription drug price disclosure laws. Other jurisdictions may enact similar or novel measures intended to reduce or constrain the growth of pharmaceutical spending or otherwise impose policy measures (either opioid-specific or applicable to the pharmaceutical industry as a whole) that could increase our operating costs associated with compliance.
The Collegium Portfolio
Our mission is to be the leader in responsible pain management. We have leveraged our research and development efforts as well as licensing relationships with third parties, to develop a portfolio of meaningfully differentiated products for use in the treatment of moderate to severe pain.
Xtampza ER
In April 2016, the FDA approved our New Drug Application (“NDA”) for Xtampza ER (extended-release oxycodone) for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate. The approved labeling for Xtampza ER includes human abuse potential studies, as well as data supporting the administration of the product as a sprinkle or through feeding tubes. In June 2016, we launched Xtampza ER in the United States. Xtampza ER is formulated using our novel abuse-deterrent technology platform, DETERx, which provides extended-release delivery, while also providing barriers to common methods of abuse and misuse (e.g., crushing, chewing, heating and injecting). This technology combines an active opioid ingredient with a fatty acid and waxes to form microspheres that are filled into a capsule. These wax-based microspheres are designed to resist particle size reduction and dose dumping when subjected to physical and chemical manipulation. Xtampza ER’s label indicates a dosing regimen of one capsule every 12 hours and it must be taken with food.
Xtampza ER, OxyContin from Purdue, and the authorized generic version of OxyContin (which is identical to the branded version) are the only extended-release oxycodone products marketed in the United States as of January 2021. In 2020, the extended-release oxycodone (OER) market generated approximately $1.4 billion in gross U.S. sales and there were approximately 2.4 million prescriptions written. OxyContin is the largest selling extended-release oxycodone (and largest-selling branded extended-release opioid) in the United States by dollars and prescription volume, with approximately $1.0 billion in U.S. gross sales and approximately 1.9 million prescriptions written in 2020. Relative to 2019, dollars generated by sales for OxyContin and its authorized generic forms written in the United States in 2020 declined 17%, with a 20% decline prescription volume. In 2020, approximately 566,000 prescriptions for Xtampza ER were written.
5
Table of Contents
Xtampza ER and OxyContin (along with its authorized generic) feature the same active pharmaceutical ingredient and feature abuse-deterrent technologies – though the abuse deterrent technologies are designed differently. In November 2017, we announced FDA approval of a Supplemental New Drug Application (“sNDA”) for Xtampza ER to include comparative oral pharmacokinetic data from a clinical study evaluating the effect of physical manipulation by crushing Xtampza ER compared with OxyContin and a control (oxycodone hydrochloride immediate-release). In the study, Xtampza ER maintained its extended-release pharmacokinetic profile when crushed, while OxyContin showed a rapid release of oxycodone when crushed with common household tools; crushed OxyContin was bioequivalent to crushed oxycodone IR. The sNDA also added results from an oral human abuse potential study and an oral abuse deterrent claim to the label, making Xtampza ER the only single-agent extended-release oxycodone with oral, intranasal, and intravenous abuse-deterrent labeling.
We believe Xtampza ER is well-positioned to capture a significant share of extended-release oxycodone market.
Nucynta ER and Nucynta IR
Nucynta ER is an extended-release formulation of tapentadol that is indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long term opioid treatment, and for which alternate treatment options are inadequate. Nucynta ER is also the only extended-release opioid approved by the FDA for management of the neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Nucynta IR is an immediate-release formulation of tapentadol that is indicated for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate in adults. Nucynta ER and Nucynta IR are the only tapentadol-based products marketed in the United States and the drug substance is patent-protected.
Nucynta ER’s label includes data from separate clinical trials that demonstrate its efficacy in improving pain intensity for patients suffering from chronic low back pain and neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Nucynta IR’s label includes data from a clinical trial that demonstrates its efficacy in improving pain intensity for post-surgical acute pain.
In December 2017, we entered into the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement, pursuant to which Assertio agreed to grant us a sublicense of certain of its intellectual property related to the Nucynta Products for commercialization of such products in the United States. On January 9, 2018, we amended the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement and consummated the transactions contemplated thereby. On February 13, 2020, we closed the Nucynta Acquisition.
We began shipping and recognizing product sales on the Nucynta Products on January 9, 2018 and we began commercial promotion of the Nucynta Products in February 2018. The Nucynta Commercialization Agreement initially required us to pay guaranteed minimum royalty of $135.0 million per year through December 2021, as well as a variable royalty based on annual net sales over $233.0 million and a variable royalty of 14% on net sales for ultimate payment to Grünenthal Gmbh. On November 8, 2018, we amended certain terms of the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement, which eliminated the $135.0 million guaranteed minimum annual royalties and adjusted the royalty structure such that beginning on January 1, 2019, our obligation to make royalty payments to Assertio became conditional solely upon net sales. Upon the closing of the Nucynta Acquisition and the termination of the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement (except for certain sections that survive in accordance with the Nucynta Purchase Agreement), we assumed all commercialization responsibilities, including sales and marketing, for the Nucynta Products, through the assumption of a license from Grünenthal Gmbh (the “Grünenthal License”). Our prior royalty obligation to Assertio ceased and our only remaining royalty obligation is to pay 14% of net sales of the Nucynta Products directly to Grünenthal Gmbh under the Grünenthal License.
Manufacturing of Our Products
Overview
Xtampza ER is manufactured using a proprietary process. This process is reproducible, scalable and cost-efficient, and we believe that the microsphere formulation — and the related manufacturing process — is unique in the extended-release opioid market. To date, we have produced Xtampza ER through a contract manufacturing organization, Patheon, a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. Our microsphere production is currently conducted in an area of the manufacturing plant that is shared with other clients. We have completed the build-out of a dedicated manufacturing suite within the same Patheon site and will be transitioning production to the new suite. Patheon has an established
6
Table of Contents
record of manufacturing FDA-approved products in the United States, including products containing controlled substances. We own all of the intellectual property, including know - how and specialized manufacturing equipment, necessary to be able to qualify the manufacturing equipment currently located at Patheon’s facility as an alternative location (and with an alternative vendor) if necessary.
Pursuant to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement, Assertio was historically responsible for manufacturing and delivering to us the Nucynta Products for commercialization in the United States. As part of our partnership with Assertio, we participated in a Joint Manufacturing Steering Committee with our counterparts at Assertio, through which we took part in decisions regarding the commercial manufacturing of the Nucynta Products. Effective upon the closing of the Nucynta Acquisition, we assumed responsibility for manufacturing the Nucynta Products for commercialization in the United States. Nucynta ER is produced at a Janssen facility in Puerto Rico pursuant to a supply agreement that we assumed from Assertio in connection with the Nucynta Acquisition. At the time of closing of the Nucynta Acquisition, Assertio had initiated a technology transfer to enable manufacturing of Nucynta ER at Patheon in Cincinnati, Ohio; we have assumed responsibility for completing such technology transfer in connection with the Nucynta Acquisition. Nucynta IR is produced at a contract manufacturing organization, Cambrex, pursuant to a manufacturing and supply agreement that we assumed from Assertio in connection with the Nucynta Acquisition.
Drug Substances
The active pharmaceutical ingredient used to formulate Xtampza ER is oxycodone base, which presents as myristate salt in the Xtampza ER formulation. We currently procure this active pharmaceutical ingredient pursuant to a supply agreement with a single U.S. - based manufacturer. We are aware of other suppliers who we would expect to be able to satisfy our commercial orders.
The active pharmaceutical ingredient used in the Nucynta Products is tapentadol, which is supplied by a single U.S.-based manufacturer.
Oxycodone base and tapentadol are classified as narcotic controlled substances under U.S. federal law. Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products are classified by the DEA as Schedule II controlled substances, meaning that they have a high potential for abuse and dependence but are recognized as having an accepted medical use. Consequently, the manufacturing, shipping, dispensing and storing of our products are subject to a high degree of regulation, as described in more detail under the caption “— Governmental Regulation — DEA and Opioid Regulation.”
Marketing and Commercialization
We commercialize Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products in the United States with a dedicated field sales force, consisting of approximately 145 sales representatives and managers, to call on the approximately 11,000 health care professionals who write approximately 65% of the branded extended-release opioid prescriptions in the United States, with a primary focus on pain specialists. In addition, we employ medical science liaisons who engage in peer-to-peer medical science education with respect to pain and opioid pain therapy and respond to clinician inquiries about Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products. We also employ a market - access team to support our formulary approval and payor contracting.
Our marketing strategy focuses on increasing awareness of the differentiated features of Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products. As an integral part of educating clinicians regarding the properties and differentiated profiles of our products, our sales force is trained to share information relating to significant risks associated with prescription opioids, including risks relating to addiction, abuse and misuse.
We primarily sell our products to wholesalers that, in turn, distribute our products to retail outlets (such as drug store and supermarket chains and independent pharmacies), managed health care organizations and government agencies. Customers in the managed health care market include health maintenance organizations, nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, pharmacy benefit management companies and mail order customers. Three of our customers comprised 10% or more of our revenue during the year ended December 31, 2020. These customers comprised 34%, 31% and 31% of revenue, respectively.
7
Table of Contents
Intellectual Property
The protection of patents, designs, trademarks and other proprietary rights that we own or license is critical to our success and competitive position. Xtampza ER is protected by nineteen issued patents in the United States (which cover both the abuse-deterrent technology and methods of using it to treat patients), one granted and two pending applications in the European Patent Office, two issued patents in Canada, and one issued patent in each of Japan and Australia. Finally, we have six patent applications pending in the United States, one pending patent application in each of Canada and Japan, and one pending PCT application. Our issued U.S. patents are projected to expire in 2023, 2025, 2030, and 2036 and our pending patent applications in the United States, if issued, would be projected to expire in 2023, 2030, and 2036. In addition, we use a unique and proprietary process to manufacture our products that requires significant know how, which we currently protect as trade secrets.
We have concluded that some of our technology is best protected as proprietary know-how, rather than through obtaining patents. Except for licenses from Grünenthal GmbH to commercialize the Nucynta Products in the United States and its territories, our technology and products are not in-licensed from any third party, and we own all of the rights to Xtampza ER. We believe we have freedom to operate in the United States and other countries, but there can be no assurance that other companies, known and unknown, will not attempt to assert their intellectual property against us.
We also rely on trademarks and trade designs to develop and maintain our competitive position. We have received trademark registration for Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., DETERx, and Xtampza ER in the United States, and acquired trademarks associated with the Nucynta Products in connection with the Nucynta Acquisition.
Our business depends upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how that is not patentable, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we generally require our employees, consultants and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information and, in some cases, requiring disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business. Additionally, these confidentiality agreements require that our employees, consultants and advisors do not bring to us, or use without proper authorization, any third party’s proprietary technology.
Competition
Our industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face competition and potential competition from a number of sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies, drug delivery companies and academic and research institutions. Most of the existing and potential competitors have significantly more financial and other resources than we do. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the commercial success of our products include the therapeutic efficacy, convenience of dosing and distribution and, in the case of Xtampza ER, the degree of abuse deterrence of competing products, as well as their safety, cost and tolerability profiles.
Xtampza ER
Currently, the only extended-release opioid drugs on the market that have an abuse-deterrent product label, in addition to Xtampza ER, are OxyContin and Hysingla®, both from Purdue. Hysingla is a once a day hydrocodone product.
Xtampza ER may also face competition from commercially available generic and branded extended-release and long-acting opioid drugs other than oxycodone, including morphine sulfate, fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxymorphone and methadone, as well as opioids that are currently in clinical development, including a generic version of Xtampza ER for which Teva submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA. Pursuant to a settlement we reached with Teva in September 2020, we agreed to grant Teva a license to market its generic version of Xtampza ER in the United States beginning on or after September 2, 2033 (subject to FDA approval and acceleration under certain circumstances). As a result of the settlement, Teva agreed to a consent judgment confirming that its proposed generic products infringe upon our asserted patents and that those patents are valid and enforceable with respect to Teva’s proposed generic products. For more information regarding the settlement, please refer to Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies .
8
Table of Contents
Xtampza ER competes against all extended-release opioids, including Purdue’s OxyContin and its authorized generics. Although Purdue lists 19 patents for OxyContin in the Orange Book, of which 10 list expiration dates between 2027 and 2030, it is possible that generic forms of OxyContin could become available sooner, in which case Xtampza ER would compete with any such generic oxycodone extended-release products, in addition to all other extended-release opioids and their respective generics.
The Nucynta Products
Nucynta ER competes primarily against other long-acting opioid medications, including: OxyContin; Butrans; Belbuca; and Hysingla. Nucynta ER may also face competition from commercially available generic and branded extended-release and long-acting opioid drugs including oxycodone, morphine sulfate, fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxymorphone and methadone.
Nucynta IR competes primarily against short-acting opioids used for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate in adults. There are numerous such medicines, including: generic hydrocodone acetaminophen; generic oxycodone; generic oxycodone acetaminophen; and generic tramadol.
Government Regulation
FDA Approval Process
In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post - approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, withdrawal of the product from the market, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution. Failure to meet FDA requirements for approval would also result in a medication not being approved for marketing.
The process of developing a pharmaceutical product and obtaining FDA approval to market the medication in the United States typically involves:
● completion of preclinical laboratory and animal testing and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s good laboratory practices (“GLP”), regulation;
● submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”) for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin in the United States;
● approval by an independent institutional review board, at each clinical trial site before each trial may be initiated;
● performance of adequate and well - controlled human clinical trials in accordance with current good clinical practices (“GCP”) to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each indication for which FDA approval is sought;
● satisfactory completion of an FDA pre - approval inspection of the facility or facilities at which the product is manufactured to assess compliance with the FDA’s cGMP regulations;
● submission to the FDA of an NDA or, in the case of a generic drug, an ANDA;
● satisfactory completion of a review by an FDA advisory committee, if convened; and
● FDA review and approval of the NDA.
Satisfaction of FDA pre - market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease.
Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, stability and toxicity, as well as animal studies to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLPs. The results of preclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry,
9
Table of Contents
manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long - term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations, including GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights, safety and wellbeing of subjects and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; and (ii) under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and any effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. subjects and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.
Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined.
● Phase 1 : The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients, and is tested to assess safety, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, PK, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, in some cases, early evidence of effectiveness.
● Phase 2 : The drug is typically tested in a limited patient population to begin to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance, and optimum dosage, and to identify common AEs and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more extensive Phase 3 clinical trials.
● Phase 3 : If a drug demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials (often called “pivotal trials”) are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of subjects, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit - risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. A single Phase 3 trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in rare instances where the clinical trial is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible. Sponsors of clinical trials generally must register and report key parameters of certain clinical trials at the NIH - maintained website ClinicalTrials.gov.
For products designed to deter abuse, FDA guidance regarding studies and clinical trials dictates what types of studies should be conducted to demonstrate abuse-deterrence, how those studies and clinical trials will be evaluated, and what product labeling claims may be approved based on the results of those studies and clinical trials. There are four categories of abuse-deterrence studies and clinical trials: Categories 1, 2 and 3 consist of pre-marketing studies and clinical trials designed to evaluate a product candidate’s potentially abuse-deterrent properties under controlled conditions, while Category 4, post-marketing clinical trials and studies, assesses the real-world impact of abuse-deterrent formulations. The final guidance also provides examples of product label claims that may be made based on the results of the corresponding studies and clinical trials.
After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission before accepting them for filing. Pursuant to agreements reached during reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), the FDA has a goal of acting on most original NDAs within six months or ten months of the application submission or filing date, depending on the nature of the drug. The FDA has a number of programs intended to help expedite testing, review, and approval of drug candidates that meet certain eligibility criteria. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee — typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts — for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.
If the FDA’s evaluations of the NDA and of the sponsor’s manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will issue an approval letter, and the sponsor may begin marketing the drug for the approved indications, subject to any post-approval requirements, described further below. If the FDA determines it cannot approve the NDA in its current form, it will issue a complete response letter indicating that the application will not be approved in its current form. The complete response
10
Table of Contents
letter usually describes the specific deficiencies that the FDA identified in the application and may require additional clinical or other data or impose other conditions that must be met in order to obtain approval of the NDA. After receiving a complete response letter, the applicant may resubmit the application addressing all deficiencies in the letter or withdraw the application. Addressing the deficiencies noted by the FDA can be costly and can result in significant delays prior to approval. Moreover, even if the applicant believes it has addressed the deficiencies, it is possible that approval may not ultimately be obtained.
Where a sponsor wishes to expand the originally approved prescribing information, such as by adding a new indication, it must submit and obtain approval of an sNDA. Changes to an indication generally require additional clinical studies, which can be time-consuming and require the expenditure of substantial additional resources. Under PDUFA, the target timeframe for the review of an sNDA to add a new clinical indication is six or ten months from the receipt date, depending on whether or not the sNDA has priority review. As with an NDA, if the FDA determines that it cannot approve an sNDA in its current form, it will issue a complete response letter as discussed above.
REMS
The FDA has the authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), either as a condition of the approval of an NDA or after approval to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. If the FDA determines a REMS is necessary for a new drug, the drug sponsor must submit a proposed REMS plan as part of its NDA prior to approval. The FDA may also impose a REMS requirement on a drug already on the market if the FDA determines, based on new safety information, that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the drug’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and Elements To Assure Safe Use (“ETASU”). In addition, the REMS must include a timetable for periodically assessing the strategy, at a minimum, at 18 months, three years, and seven years after the REMS approval. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a drug.
In July 2012, the FDA approved a class-wide REMS for extended-release and long-acting opioid products. Extended - release formulations of oxycodone, morphine, hydrocodone and hydromorphone, for example, are required to have a REMS. Manufacturers subject to this class-wide REMS must work together to implement the REMS as part of a single shared system to reduce the burden of the REMS on the healthcare system. The central component of the extended-release/long acting opioid REMS program is an education program for prescribers and patients. Specifically, the REMS includes a Medication Guide available for distribution to patients who are dispensed the drug, as well as a number of ETASU. These ETASU include training for healthcare professionals who prescribe the drug; information provided to prescribers that they can use to educate patients in the safe use, storage, and disposal of opioids; and information provided to prescribers about the existence of the REMS and the strong recommendation that they complete the available training. Prescriber training required to be offered as part of the REMS is conducted by accredited, independent continuing education providers, without cost to healthcare professionals, under unrestricted grants funded by the opioid analgesic manufacturers. Moreover, REMS assessments must be submitted on an annual basis to assess the extent to which the ETASU are meeting the goals of the REMS and whether the goals or elements should be modified.
In September 2018, and pursuant to its Opioids Action Plan, the FDA approved the final class-wide REMS, which includes several measures to facilitate communication of the risks associated with opioid pain medications to patients and health care professionals and, for the first time, applies to immediate-release and extended-release/long-acting opioid analgesics intended for use in an outpatient setting. The REMS requires that training be made available to health care providers who are involved in the management of patients with pain (including nurses and pharmacists) and requires that the education cover broad information about appropriate pain management, including alternatives to opioids for the treatment of pain. In connection with the 2018 REMS, the FDA also approved new product labeling containing information about the health care provider education available through the 2018 REMS.
Advertising and Promotion
The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies closely regulate the marketing and promotion of drugs through, among other things, guidance and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs for “off-label” uses — that is, uses not approved by the FDA and therefore not described in
11
Table of Contents
the drug’s labeling — because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action by the FDA, the U.S. Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the HHS, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products.
Post-Approval Requirements
Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to drug listing and registration, recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, adverse event reporting and advertising, marketing and promotion restrictions.
Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports is required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require, in addition to REMS discussed above, post-market testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, drug manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration subjects entities to periodic announced or unannounced inspections by the FDA or these state agencies, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals, request product recalls, or take other punitive action if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.
The FDA may require post-approval studies and clinical trials if the FDA finds that scientific data, including information regarding related drugs, warrant them. The purpose of such studies would be to assess a known serious risk or signals of serious risk related to the drug or to identify an unexpected serious risk when available data indicate the potential for such a risk. The FDA may also require a labeling change if it becomes aware of new safety information that it believes should be included in the labeling of a drug.
The Hatch-Waxman Amendments
Orange Book Listing
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 product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active pharmaceutical ingredient in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or efficacy of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.
The ANDA applicant is required to make certain certifications to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a section viii statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than make certifications concerning a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.
A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the
12
Table of Contents
FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.
For further detail regarding our litigation with Teva with respect to Teva’s ANDA relating to Xtampza ER, refer to “Item 3. Legal Proceedings”.
Exclusivity
Upon approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity (“NCE”), which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which FDA cannot receive any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug or any Section 505(b)(2) NDA, discussed in more detail below, that relies on the FDA’s findings regarding that drug. A sponsor may obtain a three-year period of exclusivity for a change to an approved drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the labeling or a new formulation, if the supplement includes reports of new clinical trials (other than bioavailability clinical trials) essential to the approval of the supplement.
An ANDA may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period. No ANDA application will receive final approval before any applicable non patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired.
Section 505(b)(2) NDAs
A Section 505(b)(2) NDA is a special type of NDA often used by applicants seeking approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved active moieties. Under Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, in lieu of developing all of the information normally required for approval of an NDA, an applicant may rely, in part, on data developed by another party and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Most commonly, 505(b)(2) applicants rely on the FDA’s findings of safety and efficacy in a prior approval of a similar product (although they may also rely on information in published literature). A 505(b)(2) application that references a prior approval may seek approve for some or all of the referenced product’s labeled indications and/or for a different indication not included in the referenced product’s label.
To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on the FDA’s findings of safety and effectiveness for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. Thus approval of a Section 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired; until any non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired; and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant. In the interim period, the FDA may grant tentative approval. Tentative approval indicates that the FDA has determined that the applicant meets the standards for approval as of the date that the tentative approval is granted. Final regulatory approval can only be granted if the FDA is assured that there is no new information that would affect final regulatory approval. As with traditional NDAs, a Section 505(b)(2) NDA may be eligible for three-year marketing exclusivity, assuming the NDA includes reports of new clinical trials (other than bioavailability clinical trials) essential to the approval of the NDA. For further detail regarding our litigation with Purdue regarding our Section 505(b)(2) NDA for Xtampza ER, refer to “Item 3. Legal Proceedings”.
DEA and Opioid Regulation
Our products are regulated as “controlled substances” as defined in the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), which establishes registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation and other requirements administered by the DEA.
13
Table of Contents
The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances.
Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products are listed by the DEA as a Schedule II controlled substance under the CSA. Consequently, the manufacturing, shipping, storing, selling and using of our products is subject to a high degree of regulation. Schedule II drugs are subject to the strictest requirements for registration, security, recordkeeping and reporting. Also, distribution and dispensing of these drugs are highly regulated. For example, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, presented to a pharmacist and may not be refilled without a new prescription.
Annual DEA registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized.
In addition, a DEA quota system, which was amended in 2018 to require sponsors to strengthen controls over diversion of controlled substances, controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. In November 2017, the DEA reduced the amount of almost every Schedule II opiate and opioid medication that may be manufactured in the U.S. in calendar year 2018 by 20%. For 2019, the DEA proposed decreased manufacturing quotas for the six most frequently misused opioids, including oxycodone, by an average of 10% as compared to the 2018 quotas. The DEA proposed further decreasing manufacturing quotas in 2020 for five of the six opioids (fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, oxymorphone), by an average of 28%. In October 2019, the DEA proposed additional regulations to amend the manner in which the agency grants quotas to manufacturers. If finalized, the proposed regulations will establish use-specific quotas, including commercial sales, product development, transfer, replacement and packaging. To decrease the risk of diversion and increase accountability, inventory allowances will be reduced, and procurement quota certifications will be required. In April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the DEA adjusted the established 2020 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for select Schedule II substances. The DEA took this action to ensure that the country has an adequate and uninterrupted supply of these substances during the public health emergency.
Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA. Because Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products are regulated as a Schedule II controlled substances, they are subject to the DEA’s production and procurement quota scheme. The DEA establishes annually an aggregate quota for how much active opioid ingredients, such as oxycodone and tapentadol, may be produced in total in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate scientific and medicinal needs. The limited aggregate amount of opioids that the DEA allows to be produced in the United States each year is allocated among individual companies, who must submit applications annually to the DEA for individual production and procurement quotas. We and our contract manufacturers must receive an annual quota from the DEA in order to produce or procure any Schedule I or Schedule II substance, including oxycodone base for use in manufacturing Xtampza ER. In addition, we and our contract manufacturers must receive an annual quota from the DEA in order to produce or procure tapentadol for use in manufacturing the Nucynta Products. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas and individual production and procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments.
The DEA also requires drug manufacturers to design and implement a system that identifies suspicious orders of controlled substances, such as those of unusual size, those that deviate substantially from a normal pattern and those of unusual frequency, prior to completion of the sale. A compliant suspicious order monitoring system includes well-defined due diligence, “know your customer” efforts and order monitoring.
To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings.
14
Table of Contents
Individual states also independently regulate controlled substances. We and our contract manufacturers are subject to state regulation on distribution of these products.
Federal laws have been enacted to address the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and illicit opioid use. In 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (“CARA”), was enacted to address the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use. CARA expands the availability of naloxone for law enforcement and other first responders, forms an interagency task force to develop best practices for pain management with opioid medications and provides resources to improve state monitoring of opioids. The Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (“SUPPORT Act”), which was signed into law in November 2018, includes a number of measures directed towards regulation and improvement of treatment for substance use-disorder and increased coverage by CMS of medically-assisted treatment options. In addition, the SUPPORT Act requires HHS to report to Congress on existing barriers to access to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations by Medicare Part C and D beneficiaries.
Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws and Compliance Requirements
We are subject to federal, state and local laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry, violations of which can lead to civil and criminal penalties, including fines, imprisonment and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. These laws are potentially applicable to us as both a manufacturer and a supplier of products and they also apply to hospitals, physicians and other potential purchasers of our products. The applicable federal fraud and abuse laws apply to products or services reimbursed by federal healthcare programs. Some states, however, have applicable fraud and abuse laws that apply more broadly to include products or services reimbursed by private payors.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)) prohibits knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or providing 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 healthcare program such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Remuneration is not defined in the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example, gifts, discounts, coupons, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, payments of cash, waivers of payments, ownership interests and providing anything at less than its fair market value. Under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the applicable criminal healthcare fraud statutes contained within 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, a person or entity need not have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act (discussed below) or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes fines against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute and implementing regulations provide for certain exceptions for “safe harbors” for certain discounting, rebating or personal services arrangements, among other things. However, the lack of uniform court interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute makes compliance with the law difficult. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can result in significant criminal fines, exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid and follow-on civil litigation, among other things, for both entities and individuals.
Other federal healthcare fraud-related laws also provide criminal liability for violations. The Criminal Healthcare Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1347 prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers. Federal criminal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1001, among other sections, 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 healthcare benefits, items or services.
The civil False Claims Act and similar state laws impose liability on any person or entity who, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal healthcare program. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and similar state laws allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal or state government and to share in any monetary recovery. The Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act and similar state laws impose reporting requirements for various types of payments to physicians and teaching hospitals. Failure to comply with required reporting requirements under these laws could subject manufacturers and others to substantial civil money penalties. In addition, government entities and private litigants have asserted claims under state consumer protection statutes against pharmaceutical and medical device companies for alleged false or
15
Table of Contents
misleading statements in connection with the marketing, promotion and/or sale of pharmaceutical and medical device products, including state investigations and litigation by certain government entities regarding our marketing of opioid products.
Third-Party Payor Coverage and Reimbursement
The commercial success of Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products will depend, in part, upon the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors at the federal, state and private levels. Third-party payors include governmental programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, private insurance plans and managed care plans. These third-party payors may deny coverage or reimbursement for a product or therapy in whole or in part if they determine that the product or therapy was not medically appropriate or necessary. Also, third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage through the use of formularies and other cost-containment mechanisms and the amount of reimbursement for particular procedures or drug treatments. In addition, some third-party payors also require preapproval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse healthcare providers who prescribe such therapies.
The cost of pharmaceuticals and devices continues to generate substantial governmental and third-party payor interest. We expect that the pharmaceutical industry will experience pricing pressures due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of managed care organizations and additional legislative proposals. Our results of operations and business could be adversely affected by current and future third-party payor policies as well as healthcare legislative reforms.
While we cannot predict whether any proposed cost - containment measures will be adopted or otherwise implemented in the future, these requirements or any announcement or adoption of such proposals could have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain adequate prices for Xtampza ER, the Nucynta Products and any other products we may seek to commercialize, and to operate profitably.
Healthcare Reform
In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs. The Medicare Modernization Act imposed new requirements for the distribution and pricing of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities which will provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Part D plans include both stand-alone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for our products. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from Medicare Part D may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.
In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was enacted, which significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry are the following:
● an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;
● an increase in the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% and 13% of the average manufacturer price for branded and generic drugs, respectively;
16
Table of Contents
● a Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts to negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;
● extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;
● expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the Federal Poverty Level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability;
● expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program;
● a licensure framework for follow - on biologic products;
● a Patient - Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research;
● a requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians; and
● establishment of a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS in January 2011 to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.
The Affordable Care Act has been subject to challenges in the courts. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. On December 18, 2019, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and remanded the case to the Texas District Court to reconsider its earlier invalidation of the entire Affordable Care Act. An appeal was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court which heard oral arguments in the case on November 10, 2020. A ruling is expected in 2021.
In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (created under the Budget Control Act of 2011) did not achieve its targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2012 through 2021, triggering automatic reductions to several government programs, including aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional action is taken by Congress (although they have been suspended by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act, until March 31, 2021).
The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 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. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and, accordingly, our financial operations.
In December 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) repealed the shared responsibility payment for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, commonly referred to as the individual mandate, beginning in 2019. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the repeal will result in over 13 million Americans losing their health insurance coverage over the next ten years, and is likely to lead to increases in insurance premiums. It is uncertain how or whether this legislation may affect our customers and, accordingly, our financial operations.
Other Regulatory Requirements
We are also subject to various laws and regulations regarding laboratory practices, the experimental use of animals, and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances in connection with our research. In each of these areas, as above, the FDA and other regulatory authorities have broad regulatory and enforcement powers, including, among other things, the ability to levy fines and civil penalties, suspend or delay issuance of approvals, seize or recall products, and withdraw approvals, any one or more of which could have a material adverse effect on us.
Employees and Human Capital Resources
Investing in, developing, and maintaining human capital is critical to our success. As of December 31, 2020, we had a total of 234 full-time employees. We emphasize a number of measures and objectives in managing our human capital assets, including, among others, employee safety and wellness; talent acquisition and retention; employee engagement,
17
Table of Contents
development, and training; diversity and inclusion; and compensation and pay equity. None of our employees are represented by a labor organization or under any collective-bargaining arrangements. We consider our employee relations to be good.
Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity and cash incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.
The success of our business is fundamentally connected to the well-being of our employees. Accordingly, we are committed to their health, safety and wellness. We provide our employees and their families with access to a variety of innovative, flexible and convenient health and wellness programs, including benefits that provide protection and security so they can have peace of mind concerning events that may require time away from work or that impact their financial well-being; that support their physical and mental health by providing tools and resources to help them improve or maintain their health status and encourage engagement in healthy behaviors; and that offer choice where possible so they can customize their benefits to meet their needs and the needs of their families. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented significant changes that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, as well as the community in which we operate, and which comply with government regulations. This includes us allowing our employees to work from home, while implementing additional safety measures for employees who chose to work on-site.
Executive Officers of the Company
The following table lists the positions, names and ages of our executive officers as of February 25, 2021:
Name
Age
Position(s)
Joseph Ciaffoni
49
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
Alison Fleming
46
Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer
Paul Brannelly
48
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Scott Dreyer
48
Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer
Shirley Kuhlmann
37
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Richard Malamut
61
Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer
Executive Officers
Joseph Ciaffoni, Director, President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Ciaffoni has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer since July 2018, and prior to that, served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer since May 2017. Prior to joining us, Mr. Ciaffoni served as President, U.S. Branded Pharmaceuticals of Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, from August 2016 to December 2016. Before that, from April 2012 to August 2016, Mr. Ciaffoni held various positions of increasing responsibility at Biogen Idec, including Senior Vice President, Global Specialty Medicines Group, Senior Vice President, U.S. Commercial and Vice President, U.S. Neurology Field Operations and Marketing. Prior to joining Biogen Idec, Mr. Ciaffoni was Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Shionogi Inc. and President of Shionogi Pharmaceuticals from July 2008 to October 2010. Mr. Ciaffoni also previously served as Vice President, Sales for Schering-Plough (now Merck) from May 2004 to June 2008, where he was responsible for the cholesterol franchise, and has held several commercial leadership roles at Sanofi-Synthelabo (now Sanofi) from January 2002 to April 2004 and Novartis from January 1994 to December 2001. Mr. Ciaffoni received a B.A. in Communications in 1993 and an M.B.A. in 2000, both from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Alison Fleming, Ph.D., Chief Technical Officer . Dr. Fleming has served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer since January 2017. Prior to being our Chief Technical Officer, Dr. Fleming led our development team
18
Table of Contents
as our Vice President, Product Development since October 2002. Prior to joining us, Dr. Fleming's academic research focused on implantable drug delivery systems for cancer therapy. Dr. Fleming is an inventor on several U.S. patents and pending patent applications, and has authored numerous scientific publications and poster presentations in the field of novel drug delivery systems and abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Dr. Fleming graduated from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in 1997 with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and received a Ph.D. in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering from Cornell University in 2002.
Paul Brannelly, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Brannelly has served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since February 2015. Prior to joining us, Mr. Brannelly served as Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration, and Treasurer of Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from June 2013 to August 2014. From August 2014 to November 2014, Mr. Brannelly served as a consultant to Karyopharm. Prior to joining Karyopharm, Mr. Brannelly served as Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Secretary at Verastem, Inc. from August 2010 to May 2013. From January 2010 to September 2011, Mr. Brannelly held the position of Chief Financial Officer at the Longwood Fund, a venture capital firm aimed at investing in, managing and building healthcare companies, where he set up the financial and operational infrastructure following the closing of its first fund and eventually served as Chief Financial Officer of its two startup companies, Verastem and OvaScience, Inc. From November 2005 to September 2009, he served as Vice President, Finance at Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company which GlaxoSmithKline plc purchased for $720 million in 2008. Mr. Brannelly started his biopharmaceutical career at Dyax Corporation from September 1999 to May 2002, and subsequently moved on to positions of increasing responsibility at CombinatoRx Inc. from May 2002 to November 2005, including as Vice President, Finance and Treasurer, where he led the initial public offering process. Mr. Brannelly graduated from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst with a B.B.A. in Accounting in 1995.
Scott Dreyer, Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. Mr. Dreyer has served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer since August 2018, and joined us in January 2018 as Senior Vice President, Sales, Marketing and Training. Prior to joining us, Mr. Dreyer served as the Senior Vice President, Sales, Marketing and Commercial Operations at The Medicines Company, a biopharmaceutical company, from September 2016 to December 2017; Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer – US at Biogen from June 2014 to September 2016; and Vice President, Business Development at Publicis Touchpoint Solutions, a healthcare commercialization company, from October 2013 to June 2014. Mr. Dreyer began his career in the pharmaceutical industry at Merck & Co., where he held roles of increasing responsibility from 1994 to 2013, including Vice President of Hospital and Oncology Sales from 2011 to 2012, and Vice President of Primary Care Sales from 2012 until 2013. Mr. Dreyer holds a B.S. in Biology from Messiah College in 1994.
Shirley Kuhlmann, Executive Vice President and General Counsel . Ms. Kuhlmann has served as our Executive Vice President and General Counsel since March 2018. Prior to joining us, Ms. Kuhlmann was a corporate and securities attorney at Pepper Hamilton LLP from September 2007 until March 2018. At Pepper Hamilton, where she was made a partner effective January 2017, Ms. Kuhlmann advised private and public companies on a range of commercial and transactional matters, including financings, corporate governance and disclosure matters, and mergers and acquisitions and other business combination transactions. Ms. Kuhlmann holds a B.A. in Economics/Political Science from Columbia University in 2004 and a J.D. from Emory University School of Law in 2007.
Richard Malamut, M.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer. Dr. Malamut has served as our Chief Medical Officer since April 2019. Prior to joining us, Dr. Malamut served as Chief Medical Officer, Head of Research and Development and Senior Vice President at Braeburn Pharmaceuticals from June 2018 to January 2019; Chief Medical Officer at Avanir Pharmaceuticals from November 2016 to June 2018; and Senior Vice President of Global Clinical Development at Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd from March 2013 to November 2016. Dr. Malamut also previously held roles of increasing responsibility at Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca focusing on early clinical development and translational medicine in neurology and analgesia. Dr. Malamut holds a medical degree from Hahnemann University in June 1985 and a B.S. in Biology from Trinity College in May 1981. Dr. Malamut worked as a board-certified academic and clinical neurologist for 17 years and has more than 50 publications in the fields of pain medicine, neuromuscular disease, autonomic disease and neurodegenerative disease.
19
Table of Contents
Our Corporate Information
We are headquartered in Stoughton, Massachusetts and our common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”) under the trading symbol “COLL.”
Our predecessor was incorporated in Delaware in April 2002 under the name Collegium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in October 2003, our predecessor changed its name to Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. In July 2014, we reincorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to a merger whereby Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation, merged with and into Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Virginia corporation, with the Virginia corporation surviving the merger.
Available Information
We maintain a website at www.collegiumpharma.com. We make available, free of charge on our website, our Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file those reports with, or furnish them to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our officers, directors and 10% shareholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. The SEC also maintains a website, at www.sec.gov, that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding us and other issuers that file electronically. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.
20
Table of Contents
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.