Item 1. Business
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
The terms “we,” “us,” “our,” “Daré” or the “Company” refer collectively to Daré Bioscience, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires. All information in this report is based on our fiscal year. Unless otherwise stated, references to particular years, quarters, months or periods refer to our fiscal years ending December 31 and the associated quarters, months and periods of those fiscal years.
Overview
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company committed to advancing innovative products for women’s health. We are driven by a mission to identify, develop and bring to market a diverse portfolio of differentiated therapies that expand treatment options, improve outcomes and facilitate convenience for women, primarily in the areas of contraception, vaginal health, sexual health and fertility.
Our Strategy
Our business strategy is to in-license or otherwise acquire the rights to differentiated product candidates in our areas of focus, some of which have existing clinical proof-of-concept data, to take those candidates through mid to late-stage clinical development, and to establish and leverage strategic partnerships to achieve commercialization.
We believe that there is an opportunity to fill the gap that exists in the development of innovations in women’s health between (a) non-profit organizations, small private companies and individual entrepreneurs that discover, innovate and conduct early-stage research and clinical development of product candidates, and (b) pharmaceutical companies that conduct late-stage clinical development and commercialize approved products. We believe that the development activities between these two ends of this spectrum (early pre-clinical and clinical development of product candidates on the one hand and late-stage clinical trials and commercialization of product candidates on the other) are currently underserved. In addition, we believe there are gaps in treatment options in the women's health market and there is an opportunity to provide therapies that address persistent unmet needs. We intend to fill the mid-stage development gap and to address the gaps in treatment options for women.
The dynamics of the women’s health market provide an opportunity for us to assemble a portfolio of product candidates, including clinical-stage candidates, often with published human data. Since July 2017, we have assembled a portfolio of clinical-stage and pre-clinical-stage candidates. While we will continue to assess opportunities to expand our portfolio, our current focus is on advancing our existing product candidates through mid and late stages of clinical development or FDA approval.
Our Clinical-Stage and Phase 1-ready Product Candidates and Programs
Our development strategy is two-fold:
(1) We intend to use existing data and any data we generate to prepare Investigational New Drug applications, or INDs, or Investigational Device Exemption applications, or IDEs, to the extent these have not already been prepared, and to design and implement additional pre-clinical and clinical trials to advance our programs toward the submission of New Drug Applications, or NDAs, or Premarket Approvals, or PMAs, for regulatory approval of our product candidates in the U.S.
(2) We intend to identify FDA-approved drugs and therapies that might benefit from a different formulation, manner of application or delivery method to enhance therapeutic outcomes and to expedite the development of these candidates under the FDA's 505(b)(2) pathway.
Our initial focus is in the areas of contraception, vaginal health, sexual health and fertility, and we have acquired, or acquired rights to, candidates in these areas with promising early clinical and/or pre-clinical testing data developed by third parties. We believe the product candidates currently in our portfolio offer innovative therapeutic approaches that may provide meaningful benefits over current treatment options. Our portfolio includes three product candidates in advanced stages of clinical development and three product candidates in Phase 1 clinical development or that we believe are Phase 1-ready. The following graphic provides a snapshot of our clinical-stage product candidates, including their targeted indications and our current expectations for their respective stages of development in 2021:
4
5
DARE-BV1
DARE-BV1 is a novel thermosetting bioadhesive hydrogel formulated with clindamycin phosphate 2% that we are developing as a first - line, single-administration treatment for bacterial vaginosis. Clindamycin is an antibiotic with FDA approval to treat certain bacterial infections, including in cream formulations to treat bacterial vaginosis. DARE-BV1 is designed to transition from a viscous liquid to a bioadhesive gel at body temperature following vaginal self-administration. The bioadhesive properties and release profile of DARE-BV1 are expected to reduce leakage and prolong the duration of exposure to the active drug relative to currently marketed creams and gels with FDA-approval to treat bacterial vaginosis , potentially improving the rate of clinical effectiveness compared to those existing therapies. We plan to leverage existing safety and efficacy data on clindamycin to utilize the FDA's 505(b)(2) pathway to obtain marketing approval of DARE-BV1 for bacterial vaginosis in the U.S. We are not aware of any unexpired patent or non-patent market exclusivities for clindamycin, and we do not expect to make any Paragraph IV certification in the NDA for DARE-BV1. The FDA's 505(b)(2) pathway and Paragraph IV certifications are described in more detail below under "Government Regulation – U.S. Government Regulation – FDA Approval Process for Prescription Drugs – Marketing Application Submission and FDA Review," and “Government Regulation – U.S. Government Regulation – New Drug Marketing Exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments & GAIN Exclusivity Extension – Orange Book Listing & Patent Certification” and “– Non-Patent Exclusivities.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC, bacterial vaginosis is the most common vaginal condition in women ages 15-44. Bacterial vaginosis is a type of vaginal inflammation caused by the overgrowth of certain bacteria naturally found in the vagina. Symptoms include vaginal discharge, vaginal odor, vaginal pain, itching or burning, and burning during urination. We believe current bacterial vaginosis therapies are inadequate and there is a significant unmet need for better treatment. Current FDA-approved therapies have clinical cure rates (based on the Amsel criteria) ranging from 37-68%.
In August 2019, the FDA granted DARE-BV1 Qualified Infectious Disease Product (QIDP) designation for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in women. Because of its QIDP designation, if DARE-BV1 is approved by the FDA for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in women, we expect it to receive the five-year GAIN Act exclusivity extension to any non-patent marketing exclusivity period for which it qualifies upon approval. In March 2020, we announced that we received Fast Track designation from the FDA for DARE-BV1 for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. The designation offers the opportunity for more frequent interactions with the FDA to discuss DARE-BV1's development plan and ensure collection of appropriate data needed. The Fast Track program is intended to facilitate development and expedite review of a Fast Track drug so that an approved product can reach the market expeditiously. Given DARE-BV1's QIDP and Fast Track designations, its NDA for bacterial vaginosis could be eligible for priority review by the FDA, and we intend to request priority review upon submission of the NDA as further discussed below. For additional information about the FDA's QIPD, Fast Track and priority review programs, please see the discussion below under "Government Regulation – U.S. Government Regulation – FDA Approval Process for Prescription Drugs – Special FDA Programs to Facilitate and Expedite Development and Review of Certain New Drugs" and "Government Regulation – U.S. Government Regulation – New Drug Marketing Exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments & GAIN Exclusivity Extension – Qualified Infectious Disease Product Exclusivity."
Prior to our involvement, DARE-BV1 was evaluated in an investigator-initiated proof-of-concept study that enrolled 30 women, ages 18 to 50, to assess its efficacy in treating bacterial vaginosis after a single administration. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was clinical cure based on the Amsel criteria at the test-of-cure evaluation visit, or Visit 2, which was approximately 7 to 14 days after administration of DARE-BV1. Of the 28 evaluable subjects, 24, or 86%, achieved clinical cure at Visit 2. The women were asked to return to the clinic for a third visit, or Visit 3, approximately 21 to 30 days following administration of DARE-BV1 to evaluate continued efficacy of treatment. Of the 24 subjects who completed Visit 2 and were deemed clinically cured, 23, or 96% , remained clinically cured at Visit 3. There were no reports of adverse reactions, including local reactions to DARE-BV1.
In December 2020, we announced positive topline results from our DARE-BVFREE Phase 3 clinical trial of DARE-BV1 for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. As further discussed below, the study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that a single administration of DARE-BV1 was superior to placebo as a primary therapeutic intervention for women diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis.
DARE-BVFREE was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that randomized 307 women diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis at 32 centers across the United States in a 2:1 ratio to receive a single vaginal dose of DARE-BV1 (clindamycin phosphate vaginal gel, 2%) (N=204) or a single vaginal dose of placebo gel (HEC Universal Placebo Gel) (N=103) to be applied intravaginally within one day of randomization. Subjects were
6
evaluated during three clinic visits: Day 1 (screening and randomization visit), Day 7-14 (assessment visit that occurred 7 to 14 days after study drug administration), and Day 21-30 (test-of-cure visit that occurred 21 to 30 days after study drug administration). The primary endpoint for the study was clinical cure of bacterial vaginosis determined at the Day 21-30 visit in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) study population (N=180). In accordance with FDA guidance, the mITT population excludes subjects from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N=307) who subsequently demonstrated a positive test result for other concomitant vaginal or cervical infections at baseline. Clinical cure was defined as resolution of the specific clinical signs that comprise the Amsel criteria; specifically, resolution of abnormal vaginal discharge associated with bacterial vaginosis, clue cells less than 20% of total epithelial cells on microscopy, and a negative 10% KOH “whiff” test. The total study duration was approximately one month for each individual subject.
DARE-BV1 demonstrated statistically significant efficacy in the primary endpoint and in all five pre-specified secondary efficacy assessments. The clinical cure endpoint results are shown in the following table:
Summary of Clinical Cure Results (mITT Population), p-value < 0.001
DARE-BV1
(N = 121) Placebo
(N = 59)
Clinical Cure at Day 7-14 visit 76.0% 23.7%
Clinical Cure at Day 21-30 visit (primary endpoint) 70.2% 35.6%
The clinical cure rate at the Day 21-30 visit for the ITT population was similar to that for the mITT population (70.1% for the DARE-BV1 group (N=204) and 36.9% for the placebo group (N=103), p-value < 0.001). The clinical cure rate at the Day 21-30 visit for the per protocol (PP) population was 77.2% for the DARE-BV1 group (N=101) and 42.6% for the placebo group (N=47). The PP population (N=148) means subjects from the mITT population who have no major protocol violations that impact the primary or secondary endpoints or who received any other bacterial vaginosis therapy for any reason. The clinical cure rate at the Day 7-14 visit for the PP population was 81.2% for the DARE-BV1 group (N=101) and 29.8% for the placebo group (N=47).
DARE-BV1 was well-tolerated in the study. There were no early discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), and the only serious AE occurred in a woman in the placebo group. In the DARE-BV1 group, 15.3% of patients reported AEs that were considered to be possibly, probably or definitely related to study treatment compared to 9.7% of patients in the placebo group. Only two AEs were reported by more than 2% of patients in the DARE-BV1 group and at a rate higher than in patients in the placebo group – vulvovaginal candidiasis, commonly called a vaginal yeast infection (17.2% in the DARE-BV1 group and 3.9% in the placebo group), and vulvovaginal pruritus, commonly referred to as vaginal itching (4.4% in the DARE-BV1 group and 1.9% in the placebo group). Over half of the vaginal yeast infections reported in the DARE-BV1 group and exactly half of those reported in the placebo group occurred in patients who exhibited a positive yeast culture prior to dosing.
Based on the topline results from the DARE-BVFREE study and our meetings and other communications with the FDA since we announced those results, we plan to submit an NDA for DARE-BV1 for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis by the end of the second quarter of 2021. We have requested an application fee waiver for the NDA submission, using the small business eligibility criteria available under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, and anticipate that the FDA will grant that fee waiver. As discussed above, we intend to request priority review status for the NDA upon submission, which, if granted, could allow for a review period of six months from the FDA's receipt of our NDA submission, rather than the 10-month review period for non-priority submissions. Assuming we submit our DARE-BV1 NDA in the second quarter of 2021, the FDA grants priority review and sets a goal date for a decision, or a PDUFA date, within approximately six months from the NDA submission date, and the FDA approves the NDA in 2021, we would expect a commercial launch of DARE-BV1 in the United States in early 2022.
Ovaprene®
We believe the need for more effective and convenient options is particularly true with contraception. While a variety of hormonal and non-hormonal options exist, there is a notable void: an effective, short-acting, hormone-free method of contraception that does not require intervention at the time of intercourse.
Ovaprene is a novel, investigational hormone-free monthly intravaginal contraceptive designed to be worn conveniently over multiple weeks (one menstrual cycle) and with the potential to achieve “typical use” contraceptive efficacy comparable to current FDA-approved non-implanted hormonal contraceptive methods (pills, patches and vaginal rings), which is approximately 91% typical use efficacy. Typical use contraceptive efficacy refers to the expected rate of pregnancy prevention during the first year of actual use of a method, including sometimes using the
7
method in a way that is not correct or not consistent. Ovaprene features a proprietary knitted polymer barrier to physically block sperm from entering the cervical canal within a silicone-reinforced ring that releases non-hormonal agent ferrous gluconate to impede sperm motility. Unlike current FDA-approved monthly intravaginal contraceptives, Ovaprene does not contain hormones, but, consistent with those monthly intravaginal contraceptives, including Merck’s NuvaRing®, Ovaprene is designed to be a “one size fits most” monthly, self-administered product. If approved, Ovaprene could be the first hormone-free, monthly contraceptive option for women.
Ovaprene is a combination product and, following a request for designation process, the FDA designated the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, or CDRH, as the lead FDA program center for premarket review and product regulation. CDRH has determined that premarket approval will be required to market Ovaprene in the U.S.
In a postcoital test, or PCT, pilot clinical study conducted by the previous sponsor in 20 women and published in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine® in 2009, Ovaprene demonstrated the ability to immobilize sperm and prevent their progression into the cervical mucus. The study also demonstrated the acceptability of the device to both partners. No colposcopic abnormalities, no significant changes in vaginal flora and no serious adverse effects were observed.
In November 2019, we announced positive topline results of our PCT clinical trial of Ovaprene. We designed the PCT clinical trial to assess general safety and effectiveness in preventing progressively motile sperm from reaching the cervical canal following intercourse and acceptability of the product to the patient. The study evaluated 23 women over the course of five menstrual cycles, with each woman assessed over approximately 21 visits. Each woman’s cervical mucus was measured at several points during the study, including a baseline measurement at menstrual cycle 1 that excluded the use of any product. Subsequent cycles and visits included the use of a diaphragm during intercourse (menstrual cycle 2) and Ovaprene (menstrual cycles 3, 4 and 5). The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate changes from baseline in PCT results due to device use, as represented by the proportion of women and cycles with an average of fewer than five progressively motile sperm (PMS) per high power field (HPF) in midcycle cervical mucus collected two to three hours after intercourse with Ovaprene in place.
Our PCT clinical trial met its primary endpoint: Ovaprene prevented the requisite number of sperm from reaching the cervix across all women and all cycles evaluated. Specifically, in 100% of women and cycles, an average of less than five PMS per HPF were present in the midcycle cervical mucus collected two to three hours after intercourse with Ovaprene in place. To calculate the average number of PMS, PMS were counted across each of nine HPFs and averaged. Women enrolled in the study who completed at least one Ovaprene PCT (N=26) had a mean of 27.21 PMS/HPF in their baseline cycle when no contraception was used, a mean of 0.22 PMS/HPF in their diaphragm cycle, which was anticipated based on published studies, and a mean of 0.48 PMS/HPF in their Ovaprene PCT cycles, with a median of zero PMS. No serious or severe adverse events were reported or observed.
PCT clinical trials have been used as a surrogate marker for contraceptive effectiveness. Infertility research suggests that higher rates of pregnancy are associated with PMS per HPF of from greater than one to greater than 20 sperm, and less than five PMS per HPF is considered indicative of contraceptive effectiveness.
Based on the positive results of our PCT clinical trial of Ovaprene, and with the support of Bayer under the commercial license agreement discussed below, we are conducting activities to support submission of an IDE to the FDA in the fourth quarter of 2021 for a pivotal clinical study of Ovaprene. We are designing the study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Ovaprene to prevent pregnancy when used over a period of at least six months and up to approximately 12 months by approximately 250 women. We will seek to confirm alignment with the FDA on the study's design prior to commencement. Our ongoing communications with the FDA regarding the trial design include discussion of the amount of product use sufficient to demonstrate efficacy and safety (i.e., the number of study subjects to complete evaluation and the total number of menstrual cycles to be assessed using Ovaprene). We believe that the development activities we are conducting prior to commencement of the planned pivotal study will continue to advance this program and enable a study start by the first quarter of 2022 and a six-month safety and efficacy data readout by year-end 2022. If the planned pivotal clinical study is successful, we expect the study's data to support a PMA submission to the FDA, as well as regulatory filings in Europe and other countries worldwide, to allow for marketing approvals of Ovaprene.
We are developing Ovaprene with ADVA-Tec, Inc. and Bayer HealthCare LLC, or Bayer, as part of two strategic collaborations announced in March 2017 and January 2020, respectively. See "License Agreements" below for discussion of the terms of e ach collaboration.
8
Sildenafil Cream, 3.6%
While numerous pharmaceutical products have been developed and approved to treat erectile dysfunction in men, women continue to lack effective options for female sexual arousal disorder, or FSAD, the most analogous condition of the various types of female sexual dysfunction disorders. We are developing Sildenafil Cream, 3.6%, an investigational proprietary cream formulation of sildenafil, a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor and the active ingredient in the male erectile dysfunction drug Viagra®, for topical administration to the vulva and vagina for treatment of FSAD. Today, there are no FDA-approved products that specifically address the symptoms or underlying pathology of FSAD. We plan to leverage the existing data and established safety profile of sildenafil and the Viagra® brand to utilize the FDA’s 505(b)(2) pathway to obtain marketing approval of Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% in the U.S. for the treatment of women suffering from FSAD. If approved, Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% could be the first FDA-approved FSAD treatment option for women.
FSAD is a condition characterized primarily by a persistent or recurrent inability to attain or maintain sufficient genital arousal (an adequate lubrication-swelling response) during sexual activity, frequently resulting in distress or interpersonal difficulty. This is distinct from hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women, which is characterized primarily by a lack of sexual desire. As with erectile dysfunction in men, FSAD in women is associated with insufficient blood flow to the genitalia. Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% is designed to facilitate vasodilation and increase genital blood flow, and, as a result, to provide improvements in the female genital arousal response, while avoiding systemic side effects observed with oral formulations of sildenafil.
In a Phase 1 clinical study of three escalating doses of topical sildenafil cream (1 g cream with 35 mg sildenafil; 2 g cream with 71 mg sildenafil; and 4 g cream with 142 mg sildenafil) in 20 healthy post-menopausal women using a crossover study design, topical sildenafil cream demonstrated significantly lower systemic exposure to sildenafil compared to a 50 mg oral sildenafil dose, and topical sildenafil cream was safe and well tolerated at clinically relevant doses (1-2 g cream). Study subjects reported favorable product characteristics: easy to use and readily absorbed.
In a Phase 2a, single center, single-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover study, women with FSAD, ages 21 to 60, received a single 2 g dose of Sildenafil Cream, 3.6%. Of the 35 women enrolled, 31 (15 pre-menopausal and 16 post-menopausal) completed the study. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% compared to placebo cream assessed by participant-reported levels of subjective cognitive sexual arousal and by physiological genital arousal response. Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% demonstrated increases in measurable blood flow to the genital tissue compared to placebo (mean change in vaginal pulse amplitude analysis) using a vaginal photoplethysmograph approximately 30 minutes post-dosing.
A Phase 1, single-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study to evaluate the feasibility of using thermography to assess the pharmacodynamics of Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% in normal healthy women was conducted at a single center. During the thermography study, genital temperature, a surrogate for genital blood flow, was captured and recorded utilizing an infrared camera capable of detecting heat patterns from blood flow in body tissues. The study, which was designed to evaluate up to 10 subjects, achieved the study objectives based on a planned interim analysis of the first six completed subjects, and thus additional subjects were not enrolled. In this study, Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% demonstrated significantly greater increases in genital temperature compared to placebo cream, indicating a positive impact on genital blood flow during the 30-minute post-dosing testing session, with statistical separation from placebo cream within the first 15 minutes after dosing. Additionally, significantly greater self-reported arousal responses were reported during Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% visits compared to placebo cream visits.
In 2019, as part of our Phase 2b clinical program for Sildenafil Cream, 3.6%, we completed a non-interventional study, or the content validity study, designed to identify and document the genital arousal symptoms that are most important and relevant to women with FSAD. Participants who met the eligibility criteria participated in one-on-one, in-depth interviews conducted by subject matter experts in the field of clinical outcome assessments and female sexual medicine. The findings of that study helped facilitate alignment with the FDA on acceptable efficacy endpoints in our Phase 2b clinical study and future Phase 3 program, including with respect to the patient reported outcome, or PRO, instruments to be used to screen eligible patients with FSAD and to measure achievement of the primary efficacy endpoint in the Phase 2b study.
In March 2021, we announced initiation of our Phase 2b RESPOND clinical study of Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% in women with FSAD and that we are targeting a topline data readout by year-end 2021. During the planned Phase 2b RESPOND clinical trial, subjects will use Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% and placebo cream in their home setting and will document genital arousal symptoms and distress using PRO instruments. The primary efficacy endpoint of the study
9
is a composite endpoint that includes patient-reported improvement in genital sensations of arousal and reduction in distress associated with FSAD. The Phase 2b RESPOND trial is designed to evaluate Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% compared to placebo cream over 12 weeks of dosing following both a non-drug and placebo run-in period. The Phase 2b RESPOND study is expected to randomize 400 to 590 subjects into the double-blind dosing period from 40 to 50 sites in the U.S. to ensure a total of 300 (150:150) to 440 (220:220) subjects complete the 12-week double-blind dosing period. The final study sample size will be determined by a single interim analysis for unblinded sample size re-estimation, based on the study’s adaptive design. An adaptive design implemented in accordance with the FDA’s Guidance for Industry on adaptive designs for clinical trials of drugs mitigates the risk of the study being underpowered if the true treatment effect and variability are significantly different from estimates based on published data but are still clinically meaningful. Our target timeline for topline data readout of the Phase 2b RESPOND study assumes that enrollment proceeds successfully and that an increase in sample size above 400 randomized subjects is not required.
We will continue to actively engage with the FDA in 2021 to help ensure that any additional required studies and development activities may be completed during the course of the clinical development program to support an NDA submission.
We are developing Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% with Strategic Science & Technologies-D LLC under our license and collaboration agreement announced in February 2018. See “License Agreements” below for discussion of the terms of this collaboration.
DARE-HRT1
DARE-HRT1 is a unique IVR containing bio-identical estradiol and bio-identical progesterone that is designed to be worn over multiple weeks for sustained drug delivery for the treatment of vasomotor and vaginal symptoms associated with menopause as part of a hormone therapy regimen. The IVR technology used in DARE-HRT1 was developed by Dr. Robert Langer from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. William Crowley from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Unlike other vaginal ring technologies, ours is designed to release drugs via a solid ethylene vinyl acetate polymer matrix without the need for a membrane or reservoir to contain the active drug or control the release, allowing for sustained drug delivery over time periods ranging from weeks to months.
Hormone therapy is considered the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms, commonly referred to as hot flashes, and the genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and it has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. There are currently no FDA-approved IVRs that deliver bio-identical progesterone in combination with bio-identical estradiol. As such, DARE-HRT1 has the potential to be a first-in-category product that offers monthly convenience for women. We intend to leverage the existing safety and efficacy data on the active ingredients in DARE-HRT1, estradiol and progesterone, to utilize the FDA’s 505(b)(2) pathway to obtain marketing approval of DARE-HRT1 in the U.S.
In July 2020, our wholly-owned Australian subsidiary commenced a Phase 1 open-label, three-arm, parallel group clinical study of DARE-HRT1 to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, or PK, and safety of DARE-HRT1 in approximately 30 healthy, post-menopausal women at specialty women's health sites in Australia. The primary objective of the study is to describe the PK parameters of two different dose combinations (estradiol 80 µg/progesterone 4 mg IVR and estradiol 160 µg/progesterone 8 mg IVR) over 28 days. Secondary endpoints of the study include assessing the safety and tolerability of DARE-HRT1 and comparing the exposure of estradiol, estrone, and progesterone of DARE-HRT1 over 28 days against a daily combination of oral estrogen (Estrofem®) and oral progesterone (Prometrium®). We completed enrollment in the study in March 2021 and anticipate reporting topline data in the second quarter of 2021.
We are developing DARE-HRT1 under our license agreement with Catalent JNP, Inc. See “License Agreements” below for discussion of the terms of that agreement.
10
DARE-FRT1
DARE-FRT1 is an IVR designed to deliver bio-identical progesterone over a 14-day period and is being developed for the prevention of preterm birth and for broader luteal phase support as part of an in vitro fertilization, or IVF , treatment plan. DARE-FRT1 was developed from the same IVR technology platform as DARE-HRT1. We plan to continue to conduct development activities for DARE-FRT1 in preparation for a Phase 1 clinical trial anticipated to start in 2022. The timing and availability of additional funding will impact the timing of initiation of a Phase 1 clinical study of DARE-FRT1. We intend to leverage the existing safety and efficacy data for progesterone to utilize the FDA’s 505(b)(2) pathway to obtain marketing approval of DARE-FRT1 in the U.S.
We are developing DARE-FRT1 under our license agreement with Catalent JNP, Inc. See "License Agreements" below for discussion of the terms of that agreement.
DARE-VVA1
DARE-VVA1 is a proprietary formulation of tamoxifen for vaginal administration. We are developing DARE-VVA1 as an alternative to estrogen-based therapies for the treatment of vulvar and vaginal atrophy, or VVA , in women with or at risk for hormone-receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer, including women on anti-cancer therapy, to treat the symptoms of VVA. Tamoxifen is a well-known and well-characterized selective estrogen receptor modulator, or SERM. Tamoxifen has unique properties that produce different effects in different types of tissues. In breast tissue, tamoxifen acts as an estrogen antagonist, meaning that it can inhibit estrogen's effect and hence why it may be effective in treating HR+ breast cancer. However, in other tissue, including vaginal tissue, tamoxifen has been reported to exert an estrogen-like response. This has the potential to have a favorable effect on vaginal cytology. VVA is an inflammation of the vaginal epithelium due to the reduction in levels of circulating estrogen, which is characterized by pain during intercourse, vaginal dryness and irritation. Commonly used therapies for VVA are estrogen-based and often contraindicated in HR+ breast cancer patients, or patients with a genetic predisposition or history of familial disease, because of the concern that estrogen use will promote recurrence or occurrence of disease. Due to the prevalence of aromatase inhibitors for the treatment of HR+ breast cancer, the prevalence of VVA in post-menopausal breast cancer patients is estimated to be between 42 and 70 percent. We plan to continue to conduct development activities for DARE-VVA1 in preparation for a Phase 1 clinical trial anticipated to start during the second half of 2021. The timing and availability of additional funding will impact the timing of initiation of a Phase 1 clinical study of DARE-VVA1. We intend to leverage the existing safety and efficacy data for tamoxifen to utilize the FDA’s 505(b)(2) pathway to obtain marketing approval of DARE-VVA1 in the U.S.
11
Sales and Marketing
We currently have no formal internal marketing or sales infrastructure or capabilities. To commercialize our products, if and when our product candidates are approved, we expect to enter into agreements with companies with established marketing, sales and distribution capabilities in women's health in order to supplement our internal marketing or sales efforts. Such arrangements may include granting pharmaceutical companies with other commercial products in women's health out-licenses to exclusively market, sell and distribute our products in specific geographies, engaging commercial sales organizations to utilize their internal sales organizations and other commercial functions for market access, marketing, distribution, and other related services, or assembling a hybrid of these potential options to co-promote our products.
In January 2020, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Bayer for the commercialization of Ovaprene in the U.S. See “License Agreements” below for discussion of the terms of this collaboration.
Manufacturing and Suppliers
We do not own or operate, nor do we currently plan to establish, manufacturing facilities for the production of our product candidates. We rely on third-party contract manufacturers, or CMOs, to provide all the material and supplies for our nonclinical and clinical studies, and, if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we expect to rely on CMOs to produce commercial quantities of our products, as well as the raw materials, drug substances, excipients and other supplies required to produce the finished products. These arrangements allow us to maintain a smaller and more flexible infrastructure.
We have no long-term arrangements for the production or supply of our product candidates or the materials required to produce them, except with respect to Ovaprene and Sildenafil Cream, 3.6%. Under our agreements with ADVA-Tec and SST, respectively, ADVA-Tec is responsible for providing all clinical trial and commercial supplies of Ovaprene, either directly or through a CMO, and SST is responsible for providing Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% for the planned Phase 2b clinical study. For further clinical development, we plan to utilize CMOs to produce and supply Sildenafil Cream, 3.6%. As we advance our product candidates toward regulatory approval, we intend to identify, qualify and enter into long-term arrangements with CMOs for commercial production of each approved product.
We expect that our current arrangements will meet our foreseeable needs for clinical trial materials or, generally, that alternative supply sources will be readily available. However, for some key raw materials or components of our clinical-stage product candidates, including Ovaprene and Sildenafil Cream, 3.6%, alternative supply sources may not be readily available. See ITEM 1A. "RISK FACTORS – Risks Related to our Business – Our success relies on third-party suppliers and manufacturers of our product candidates, including multiple single source suppliers and manufacturers," below.
License Agreements
Hammock/MilanaPharm Assignment and License Agreement
In December 2018, we entered into (a) an Assignment Agreement with Hammock Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Assignment Agreement, and (b) a First Amendment to License Agreement with TriLogic Pharma, LLC and MilanaPharm LLC, or the License Amendment. Both agreements relate to the Exclusive License Agreement among Hammock, TriLogic and MilanaPharm dated as of January 9, 2017, or the MilanaPharm License Agreement. Under the Assignment Agreement and the MilanaPharm License Agreement, as amended by the License Amendment, we acquired an exclusive, worldwide license under certain intellectual property to, among other things, develop and commercialize products for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of human diseases or conditions in or through any intravaginal or urological applications. The licensed intellectual property relates to the hydrogel drug delivery platform of TriLogic and MilanaPharm known as TRI-726. In DARE-BV1, this proprietary technology is formulated with clindamycin for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. In December 2019, we entered into amendments to each of the Assignment Agreement and License Amendment.
The following is a summary of other terms of the License Amendment, as amended:
License Fees. A total of $235,000 in license fees were payable, and were paid, to MilanaPharm: (1) $25,000 in connection with the execution of the License Amendment; (2) $100,000 in 2019; and (3) $110,000 in 2020.
12
Milestone Payments. We will pay to MilanaPharm: (1) up to $300,000 in the aggregate upon achievement of certain clinical and regulatory development milestones, $50,000 of which was paid in 2020, and (2) up to $1.75 million in the aggregate upon achieving certain commercial sales milestones.
Foreign Sublicense Income . We will pay MilanaPharm a low double-digit percentage of all income received by us or our affiliates in connection with any sublicense granted to a third party for use outside of the United States, subject to certain exclusions.
Royalty Payments. During the royalty term, we will pay MilanaPharm high single-digit to low double-digit royalties based on annual worldwide net sales of licensed products and processes. The royalty term, which is determined on a country-by-country basis and licensed product-by-product basis (or process-by-process basis), begins with the first commercial sale of a licensed product or process in a country and terminates on the latest of (1) the expiration date of the last valid claim of the licensed patent rights that cover the method of use of such product or process in such country, or (2) 10 years following the first commercial sale of such product or process in such country. Royalty payments are subject to reduction in certain circumstances, including as a result of generic competition, patent prosecution expenses incurred by us, or payments to third parties for rights or know-how required for us to exercise the licenses granted to it under the MilanaPharm License Agreement or that are strategically important or could add value to a licensed product or process in a manner expected to materially generate or increase sales.
Efforts . We must use commercially reasonable efforts and resources to (1) develop and commercialize at least one licensed product or process in the United States and at least one licensed product or process in at least one of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy or Spain, and (2) continue to commercialize that product or process following the first commercial sale of a licensed product or process in the applicable jurisdiction.
Term. Unless earlier terminated, the license term continues until (1) on a licensed product-by-product (or process-by-process basis) and country-by-country basis, the date of expiration of the royalty term with respect to such licensed product in such country, and (2) the expiration of all applicable royalty terms under the MilanaPharm License Agreement with respect to all licensed products and processes in all countries. Upon expiration of the term with respect to any licensed product or process in a country (but not upon earlier termination of the MilanaPharm License Agreement), the licenses granted to us under the MilanaPharm License Agreement will convert automatically to an exclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, non-terminable and irrevocable right and license under the licensed intellectual property.
In addition to customary termination rights for all parties, MilanaPharm may terminate the license granted to us solely with respect to a licensed product or process in a country if, after having launched such product or process in such country, (1) we or our affiliates or sublicensees discontinue the sale of such product or process in such country and MilanaPharm notifies us of such termination within 60 days of having first been notified by us of such discontinuation, or (2) we or our affiliates or sublicensees (A) discontinue all commercially reasonable marketing efforts to sell, and discontinue all sales of, such product or process in such country for nine months or more, (B) fail to resume such commercially reasonable marketing efforts within 120 days of having been notified of such failure by MilanaPharm, (C) fail to reasonably demonstrate a strategic justification for the discontinuation and failure to resume to MilanaPharm, and (D) MilanaPharm gives 90 days’ notice to us.
The following is a summary of other terms of the Assignment Agreement, as amended.
Assignment; Technology Transfer . Hammock assigned and transferred to us all of its right, title and interest in and to the MilanaPharm License Agreement and agreed to cooperate to transfer to us all of the data, materials and the licensed technology in its possession pursuant to a technology transfer plan to be agreed upon by the parties, with a goal for us to independently practice the licensed intellectual property as soon as commercially practical in order to develop and commercialize the licensed products and processes.
Fees . A total of $512,500 in fees were payable, and were paid, to Hammock: (1) $250,000 in connection with the execution of the Assignment Agreement; (2) $125,000 in 2019; and (3) $137,500 in 2020.
Milestone Payments . We will pay Hammock up to $1.1 million in the aggregate upon achievement of certain clinical and regulatory development milestones.
Term . The Assignment Agreement will terminate upon the later of (1) completion of the parties’ technology transfer plan, and (2) payment to Hammock of the last of the milestone payments.
13
ADVA-Tec License Agreement
In March 2017, we entered into a license agreement with ADVA-Tec, Inc., under which we were granted an exclusive license under ADVA-Tec’s intellectual property rights to develop and commercialize Ovaprene for human contraceptive use worldwide. ADVA-Tec and its affiliates own issued patents or patent applications covering Ovaprene, and control proprietary trade secrets covering the manufacture of Ovaprene. As of March 29, 2021, this patent portfolio includes nine issued U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent applications, eight granted foreign patents, including four European patents, and seven pending foreign patent applications, all of which are exclusively licensed to us for all uses of Ovaprene as a human contraceptive device. Under this license agreement, we have a right of first refusal to license these patents and patent applications for additional indications.
The following is a summary of other terms of the ADVA-Tec license agreement:
Research and Development. ADVA-Tec will conduct certain research and development work as necessary to allow us to seek a PMA from the FDA and will provide us with clinical supplies of Ovaprene for clinical and commercial use on commercially reasonable terms. We must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize Ovaprene, and must meet certain minimum spending amounts per year, and $5 million in the aggregate over the first three years, to cover such activities until a final PMA is filed, or until the first commercial sale of Ovaprene, whichever occurs first.
Milestone and Royalty Payments. We will pay to ADVA-Tec: (1) up to $14.6 million in the aggregate based on the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones; and (2) up to $20 million in the aggregate based on the achievement of certain worldwide net sales milestones. The development and regulatory milestones include: the completion of a successful postcoital clinical study; the FDA’s approval to commence a pivotal clinical trial; successful completion of such pivotal clinical trial; the FDA’s acceptance of a PMA filing for Ovaprene; the FDA’s approval of the PMA for Ovaprene; CE Marking of Ovaprene in at least three designated European countries; obtaining regulatory approval in at least three designated European countries; and obtaining regulatory approval in Japan. Because future milestone payments depend upon the successful progress of our product development programs, we cannot estimate with certainty when these payments will occur.
Royalty Payments. After the commercial launch of Ovaprene, we will pay to ADVA-Tec royalties based on aggregate annual net sales of Ovaprene in specified regions at a royalty rate that will vary between 1% and 10% and will increase based on various net sales thresholds.
Term. Unless earlier terminated, the license we received under the agreement continues on a country-by-country basis until the later of the life of the licensed patents or our last commercial sale of Ovaprene. In addition to customary termination rights for both parties: (A) we may terminate the agreement with or without cause in whole or on a country-by-country basis upon 60 days prior written notice; and (B) ADVA-Tec may terminate the agreement if we develop or commercialize any non-hormonal ring-based vaginal contraceptive device competitive to Ovaprene or if we fail to: (1) in certain limited circumstances, commercialize Ovaprene in certain designated countries within three years of the first commercial sale of Ovaprene; (2) satisfy the annual spending obligation described above, (3) use commercially reasonable efforts to complete all necessary pre-clinical and clinical studies required to support and submit a PMA, (4) conduct clinical trials as set forth in the development plan to which we and ADVA-Tec agree, and as may be modified by a joint research committee, unless such failure is caused by events outside of our reasonable control, or (5) enroll a patient in the first non-significant risk medical device study or clinical trial as allowed by an institutional review board within six months of the production and release of Ovaprene, unless such failure is caused by events outside of the our reasonable control.
Bayer HealthCare LLC License Agreement
In January 2020, we entered into a license agreement with Bayer regarding the further development and commercialization of Ovaprene in the U.S. We received a $1.0 million upfront payment from Bayer and Bayer agreed to support us in development and regulatory activities by providing the equivalent of two experts to advise us in clinical, regulatory, preclinical, commercial, CMC and product supply matters. Bayer, in its sole discretion, has the right to make the license effective by paying us an additional $20.0 million, referred to as the Clinical Trial and Manufacturing Activities Fee. Such license would be exclusive with regard to the commercialization of Ovaprene for human contraception in the U.S. and co-exclusive with us with regard to development.
The following is a summary of the other terms of the Bayer license agreement:
14
Milestone Payments Paid by Bayer. We will be entitled to receive (a) a milestone payment in the low double-digit millions upon the first commercial sale of Ovaprene in the U.S. and escalating milestone payments based on annual net sales of Ovaprene during a calendar year, totaling up to $310.0 million if all such milestones, including the first commercial sale, are achieved, (b) tiered royalties starting in the low double digits based on annual net sales of Ovaprene during a calendar year, subject to customary royalty reductions and offsets, and (c) a percentage of sublicense revenue .
Efforts . We will be responsible for the pivotal trial for Ovaprene and for its development and regulatory activities and we have product supply obligations. After payment of the Clinical Trial and Manufacturing Activities Fee, Bayer will be responsible for the commercialization of Ovaprene for human contraception in the U.S.
Term. The initial term of the agreement, which is subject to automatic renewal terms, continues until the later of (a) the expiration of any valid claim covering the manufacture, use, sale or import of Ovaprene in the U.S.; or (b) 15 years from the first commercial sale of Ovaprene in the U.S. In addition to customary termination rights for both parties, Bayer may terminate the agreement at any time on 90 days’ notice and the agreement will automatically terminate if we do not receive the Clinical Trial and Manufacturing Activities Fee if and when due.
SST License and Collaboration Agreement
In February 2018, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Strategic Science and Technologies-D, LLC and Strategic Science Technologies, LLC, referred to collectively as SST, under which we received an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to develop and commercialize, in all countries and geographic territories of the world, for all indications for women related to female sexual dysfunction and/or female reproductive health, including treatment of female sexual arousal disorder, or the Field of Use, SST's topical formulation of Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% as it existed as of the effective date of this agreement, or any other topically applied pharmaceutical product containing sildenafil or a salt thereof as a pharmaceutically active ingredient, alone or with other active ingredients, but specifically excluding any product containing ibuprofen or any salt derivative of ibuprofen, or the Licensed Products.
The following is a summary of other terms of the SST license agreement:
Invention Ownership. We retain rights to inventions made by our employees, SST retains rights to inventions made by its employees, and each party owns a 50% undivided interest in all joint inventions.
Joint Development Committee. The parties will collaborate through a joint development committee that will determine the strategic objectives for, and generally oversee, the development efforts of both parties under the agreement.
Development . We must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop the Licensed Products in the Field of Use in accordance with a development plan in the agreement, and to commercialize the Licensed Products in the Field of Use. We are responsible for all reasonable internal and external costs and expenses incurred by SST in its performance of the development activities it must perform under the agreement.
Royalty Payments . SST will be eligible to receive tiered royalties based on percentages of annual net sales of Licensed Products in the single digits to the mid double digits, subject to customary royalty reductions and offsets, and a percentage of sublicense revenue.
Milestone Payments . SST will be eligible to receive payments (1) ranging from $0.5 million to $18.0 million in the aggregate upon achieving certain clinical and regulatory milestones in the U.S. and worldwide, and (2) between $10.0 million to $100 million in the aggregate upon achieving certain commercial sales milestones. If we enter into strategic development or distribution partnerships related to the Licensed Products, additional milestone payments would be due to SST.
License Term . Our license continues on a country-by-country basis until the later of 10 years from the date of the first commercial sale of such Licensed Product or the expiration of the last valid claim of patent rights covering the Licensed Product in the Field of Use. Upon expiration (but not termination) of the agreement in a particular country, we will have a fully paid-up license under the licensed intellectual property to develop and commercialize the applicable Licensed Products in the applicable country on a non-exclusive basis.
15
Termination . In addition to customary termination rights for both parties: (1) prior to receipt of approval by a regulatory authority necessary for commercialization of a Licensed Product in the corresponding jurisdiction, including NDA approval, we may terminate the agreement without cause upon 90 days prior written notice; (2) following receipt of approval by a regulatory authority necessary for commercialization of a Licensed Product in the corresponding jurisdiction, including NDA approval, we may terminate the agreement without cause upon 180 days prior written notice; and (3) SST may terminate the agreement with respect to the applicable Licensed Product(s) in the applicable country(ies) upon 30 days’ notice if we fail to use commercially reasonable efforts to perform development activities in substantial accordance with the development plan and do not cure such failure within 60 days of receipt of SST's notice thereof.
Catalent JNP License Agreement
In April 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Catalent JNP, Inc. (formerly known as Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and which we refer to as Catalent in this report), under which Catalent granted us (a) an exclusive, royalty-bearing worldwide license under certain patent rights, either owned by or exclusively licensed to Catalent, to make, have made, use, have used, sell, have sold, import and have imported products and processes; and (b) a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing worldwide license to use certain technological information owned by Catalent to make, have made, use, have used, sell, have sold, import and have imported products and processes. We are entitled to sublicense the rights granted to us under this agreement.
The following is a summary of other terms of the Catalent license agreement:
Upfront Fee. We paid a $250,000 non-creditable upfront license fee to Catalent in connection with the execution of the agreement.
Annual Maintenance Fee. We will pay an annual license maintenance fee to Catalent on each anniversary of the date of the agreement, the amount of which will be $50,000 for the first two years, and $100,000 thereafter, and which will be creditable against royalties and other payments due to Catalent in the same calendar year but may not be carried forward to any other year. We made the first of these payments in April 2019.
Milestone Payments. We must make potential future development and sales milestone payments of (1) up to $13.5 million in the aggregate upon achieving certain clinical and regulatory milestones, and (2) up to $30.3 million in the aggregate upon achieving certain commercial sales milestones for each product or process covered by the licenses granted under the agreement.
Royalty Payments . During the royalty term, we will pay Catalent mid-single-digit to low double-digit royalties based on worldwide net sales of products and processes covered by the licenses granted under the agreement. In lieu of such royalty payments, we will pay Catalent a low double-digit percentage of all sublicense income we receive for the sublicense of rights under the agreement to a third party. The royalty term, which is determined on a country-by-country basis and product-by-product basis (or process-by-process basis), begins with the first commercial sale of a product or process in a country and terminates on the latest of (1) the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights with respect to such product or process in such country, (2) 10 years following the first commercial sale of such product or process in such country, and (3) when one or more generic products for such product or process are commercially available in such country, except that if there is no such generic product by the 10th year following the first commercial sale in such country, then the royalty term will terminate on the 10-year anniversary of the first commercial sale in such country.
Efforts. We must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and make at least one product or process available to the public, which efforts include achieving specific diligence requirements by specific dates specified in the agreement.
Term. Unless earlier terminated, the term of the agreement will continue on a country-by-country basis until the later of (1) the expiration date of the last valid claim within such country, or (2) 10 years from the date of first commercial sale of a product or process in such country. Upon expiration (but not early termination) of the agreement, the licenses granted thereunder will convert automatically to fully-paid irrevocable licenses. Catalent may terminate the agreement (1) upon 30 days’ notice for our uncured breach of any payment obligation under the agreement, (2) if we fail to maintain required insurance, (3) immediately upon our insolvency or the making of an assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if a bankruptcy petition is filed for or against us, which petition is not dismissed within 90 days, or (4) upon 60 days’ notice for any uncured material breach by us of any of our other
16
obligations under the agreement. We may terminate the agreement on a country-by-country basis for any reason by giving 180 days’ notice (or 90 days’ notice if such termination occurs prior to receipt of marketing approval in the United States). If Catalent terminates the agreement for the reason described in clause (4) above or if we terminate the agreement, Catalent will have full access including the right to use and reference all product data generated during the term of the agreement that is owned by us.
Microchips Acquisition
In November 2019, we acquired Microchips Biotech, Inc., or Microchips, via a merger transaction in which a wholly owned subsidiary we formed for purposes of this transaction merged with and into Microchips , and Microchips survived as our wholly owned subsidiary. Microchips is developing a proprietary, implantable drug delivery system designed to store and precisely deliver numerous therapeutic doses over months and years on a schedule determined by the user and controlled via wireless remote. Microchips’ lead product candidate is a pre-clinical stage contraceptive application of the technology that utilizes levonorgestrel, now known as DARE-LARC1.
At the closing of the merger, we issued an aggregate of approximately 3.0 million shares of our common stock to the holders of shares of Microchips’ capital stock outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the merger. Such shares were in consideration of Microchips' cash and cash equivalents, less liabilities, at closing. Microchips' cash and cash equivalents at closing were approximately $5.9 million after taking into account payment of transaction-related expenses.
We agreed to pay the following contingent consideration to the former Microchips stockholders: (a) up to $46.5 million contingent upon the achievement of specified funding, product development and regulatory milestones; (b) up to $55.0 million contingent upon the achievement of specified amounts of aggregate net sales of products incorporating the intellectual property we acquired in the merger; (c) tiered royalty payments ranging from low single-digit to low double-digit percentages of annual net sales of such products, subject to customary provisions permitting royalty reductions and offset; and (d) a percentage of sublicense revenue related to such products. We agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve specified development and regulatory objectives relating to the implantable contraceptive product in development by Microchips. We recorded $1.0 million in contingent consideration associated with the milestone payments that we expect to become payable in the first half of 2021, and if and when they become due and payable, we may make such milestone payments in cash, shares of our common stock or some combination of both.
The shares of our common stock issued at the closing of the Microchips merger are being held, and any contingent consideration that becomes payable during the 18-month period following the closing will be held, in escrow for a period of 18 months post-closing to satisfy the indemnification obligations, if any, of the former Microchips stockholders under the merger agreement. That 18-month period will expire in May 2021. We agreed to register the shares of our common stock issued at the closing as well as any shares issuable after the closing as contingent consideration to the former Microchips stockholders for resale under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act. A registration statement on Form S-3 registering the possible resale from time to time of up to approximately 5.0 million shares of our common stock by the former Microchips stockholders, including the shares we issued at the closing of the merger, became effective on June 8, 2020.
Intellectual Property
We actively seek to protect the proprietary technology that we consider important to our business in the United States and other jurisdictions internationally. We also rely upon trade secrets and contracts to protect our proprietary information.
Patents
The medical device and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by the existence of a large number of patents and frequent litigation based on allegations of patent infringement. Patent litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and its outcome is uncertain. Any claim relating to infringement of third party patents that is successfully asserted against us or our licensors may require us to pay substantial damages or may limit our or our licensors' ability to rely on such patent protection. Any third party claim successfully alleging the invalidity or unenforceability of the patents may also limit our or our licensors' ability to rely on such patent protection. Even if we, or our licensors were to prevail in any such action, any litigation could be costly and time-consuming and would divert the attention of management and key personnel from our business operations. Also, if our product candidates or any future products are found to infringe the patents of others, our development, manufacture, and sale of these
17
potential products could be severely restricted or prohibited. In addition, there can be no assurance that any patent applications filed by us or our licensors will result in the grant of a patent either in the United States or elsewhere, or that any patents granted will be valid and enforceable, or that any patents will provide a competitive advantage or afford protection against competitors with similar technologies. Because of the importance of the patents underlying our product candidates, our business and our prospects may be harmed if we fail to maintain existing or obtain new patent rights or if we and our licensors fail to protect key intellectual property rights.
Under the terms of the Assignment Agreement with Hammock Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the License Amendment with TriLogic Pharma, LLC and MilanaPharm, LLC, regarding the thermosetting hydrogel platform which includes DARE-BV1, we are the exclusive licensee of two issued U.S. patents set to expire in December 2028, subject to any extensions or disclaimers, and two foreign patents, including one European Patent Office, or EPO, patent validated in four countries, that expire in December 2028, subject to any extensions or disclaimers. In addition, we have rights to three pending foreign patent applications and one pending U.S patent application. If issued the patent term for these patents would be expected to expire in 2036, subject to any extensions or disclaimers.
Under the terms of the ADVA-Tec license agreement, regarding Ovaprene, we are the exclusive licensee of nine granted U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent application, eight granted foreign patents, including four EPO patents validated in a total of 55 countries, and seven pending foreign patent applications. Two of the patents that are particularly important to the protection of Ovaprene have terms until August 2028, which includes days added to the term by patent term adjustment, and a third patent has a term that expires in July 2027, including patent term adjustment, each of such terms being subject to any future extensions or disclaimers.
Under the terms of the SST license agreement, regarding Sidenafil Cream, 3.6%, we are the exclusive licensee in the Field of Use of 19 issued patents worldwide (nine U.S. patents and 10 foreign patents, including two EPO patents validated in a total of 24 countries). Additionally, there is one patent application pending in the US, one in Europe, and three in other international markets. The issued U.S. patents have a patent term that expires in June 2029, including any patent term adjustment, and may be eligible for regulatory exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act, while several foreign patents have a term through that is set to expire in late 2031, each of such terms being subject to any future extensions of disclaimers.
Under the terms of the Catalent license agreement, regarding our intravaginal ring platform which includes DARE-HRT1, we are the exclusive licensee of four issued U.S. patents with patent terms set to expire in April 2024, November 2024, February 2025, and September 2027, including patent term adjustment, four issued foreign patents with patent terms until April 2024, including one European patent validated in three countries, as well as one pending U.S. application and two pending foreign applications that if granted are expected to have patent terms that expire in May 2038, subject to any extensions or disclaimers.
When we acquired Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in April 2018, regarding DARE-VVA1, we obtained the rights to three U.S. patents and one Japanese patent. The patent term for the U.S. patents are expected to expire in June 2027, June 2028, and May 2035 including any patent term adjustment, extensions or disclaimers. The Japanese patent has a term that is set to expire in June 2027.
When we acquired Microchips Biotech, Inc. in November 2019, we obtained the rights to over 100 patents and applications. The key technology underlying the platform is supported by 21 U.S. patents and 42 foreign patents, including six EPO patents validated in various European countries, and 16 pending patent applications, including three U.S. applications and 13 international applications. We believe that the three most recently granted patent families are most directly applicable to our DARE-LARC1 program. Those patent families have patent terms that are set to expire 2032, 2033, and 2034 respectively, subject to any extensions or disclaimers. These patent families include patents granted in the U.S., E.U. and other key international markets. One pending patent application related to DARE-LARC1, if granted, would have a patent term that would be expected to expire in 2040, subject to any extensions or disclaimers.
We also rely upon trade secret rights to protect our product candidates as well as other technologies that may be used to discover, validate and commercialize our current or any future product candidates. We presently seek protection, in part, through confidentiality and proprietary information agreements.
Trademarks
We hold a domestic registration for the trademark Daré Bioscience. In accordance with the terms of the ADVA-Tec license agreement, we are the exclusive licensee of the Ovaprene registered trademark.
18
Pre-Clinical Programs
In addition to our clinical-stage product candidates, we have licenses or other rights to the following pre-clinical stage product candidates in women’s health that meet our selection criteria of technology or product candidates with potential to expand options, improve outcomes, and facilitate convenience for women:
• DARE-LARC1 , a combination product designed to provide long-acting, reversible contraception comprising an implantable, user-controlled wireless drug delivery system and levonorgestrel;
• ORB-204 and ORB-214 , injectable formulations of etonogestrel designed to provide contraception over 6-month and 12-month periods, respectively; and
• DARE-RH1 , a novel approach to non-hormonal contraception for both men and women by targeting the CatSper ion channel.
Competition
The industries in which we operate (biopharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device) are highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant change. We may not compete successfully against organizations with competitive products, particularly large pharmaceutical companies. Many of our potential competitors have greater clinical, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, compliance and financial resources and experience than we do. See ITEM 1A. "RISK FACTORS—Risks Related to our Business— The product candidates we are developing or may develop are likely to face significant competition and our business and operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively ,” below.
We expect that, if approved, DARE-BV1 will compete directly with the multiple generic and branded prescription drug products currently approved in the U.S. for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis, including oral and vaginal gel formulations of metronidazole and vaginal cream formulations of clindamycin. Branded, single-dose FDA-approved products for bacterial vaginosis include Solosec® (secnidazole) oral granules manufactured for and distributed by Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Clindesse® (clindamycin phosphate) vaginal cream, 2% manufactured and distributed by Perrigo, and Nuvessa™ (metronidazole vaginal gel 1.3%) distributed by Exeltis USA, Inc.
Our investigational contraceptive products, including Ovaprene, if approved, will compete with a wide range of prescription and over-the-counter contraceptive options, including hormone-free options such as condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, sponges, copper IUDs, spermicides and vaginal gels, as well as hormonal products such as pills, patches, vaginal rings and injectables. In addition, multiple new methods of pregnancy prevention are in development, including hormone-free options, and some may be marketed in the U.S. before Ovaprene, potentially adding to the level of market competition Ovaprene will face, if approved.
Currently, there are no FDA-approved therapies for FSAD. Sildenafil Cream, 3.6% has the potential to be the first FDA-approved product for the treatment of FSAD.
Over the longer term, our ability, independently or otherwise, to successfully develop, manufacture, market, distribute and sell any approved products, expand their usage or bring additional new products to the marketplace will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to, FDA and foreign regulatory agency approval of new products and of new indications for existing products, the efficacy and safety of our products (alone and relative to other treatment options), the degree of patent or other protection afforded to particular products, and reimbursement for use of those products.
Many other organizations are developing drug products and other therapies intended to treat the same diseases and conditions for which our product candidates are in development, and the success of others may render potential application of our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive, even prior to completion of its development.
Government Regulation
Governmental authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate the research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling and packaging, storage, recordkeeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing, and distribution, among other things, of pharmaceutical, medical device, and drug-device combination products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals in the U.S. and in
19
foreign countries and jurisdictions, and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.
We and our third-party manufacturers, distributors and contract research organizations, or CROs, may also be subject to government regulation under other federal, state, and local laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, privacy laws and import, export and customs regulations, as well as comparable laws and regulations of other countries.
U .S. Government Regulation
In the U.S., the FDA, under the authorities granted to the agency by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations, subjects pharmaceutical and other regulated medical products to rigorous premarket review as well as post-marketing oversight and potential enforcement actions. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development or approval process, or after approval, may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice, or DOJ, or other governmental entities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on us. These sanctions could include:
• refusal to approve pending or future marketing applications;
• warning or untitled letters;
• withdrawal of an approval;
• imposition of a clinical hold;
• voluntary product recalls;
• seizures or administrative detention of product;
• total or partial suspension of production or distribution; or
• injunctions, fines, disgorgement, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.
FDA Approval Process for Prescription Drugs
To obtain approval of a new drug product from the FDA, we must, among other requirements, submit extensive data supporting its safety and efficacy, as well as detailed information on the manufacture and composition of the drug and proposed product labeling and packaging. The testing and collection of data and the preparation of necessary applications are expensive and time-consuming. The FDA may not act quickly or favorably in reviewing these applications, and we may encounter significant difficulties or costs in our efforts to obtain FDA approvals that could delay or preclude us from marketing our product candidates.
The process required by the FDA before a new drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves some or all of the following key steps:
• completion of nonclinical studies, such as laboratory tests, animal studies, and formulation studies, performed in compliance with FDA regulations for good laboratory practices, or GLPs, and other applicable regulations;
• design of a clinical protocol and its submission to the FDA as part of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
• performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to good clinical practices, or GCPs, to establish the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for its intended use;
• submission of a NDA to the FDA along with payment of the application user fee and FDA acceptance of that NDA;
• satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities at which the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, and finished drug product are produced and tested to assess readiness for commercial manufacturing and conformance to the manufacturing-related elements of the application, to conduct a data integrity audit, and to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, in order to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug candidate’s identity, strength, quality and purity;
• possible inspection of selected clinical study sites to confirm compliance with GCP requirements and data integrity; and
20
• FDA review and approval of the NDA, including satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review of the product candidate, if applicable, which must occur prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug product in the U.S.
Preclinical Studies
After a therapeutic candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical or nonclinical testing stage. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Preclinical tests intended for submission to the FDA to support the safety of a product candidate must be conducted in compliance with GLP regulations and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, if applicable. A drug sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some nonclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. In addition to including the results of the nonclinical studies, the IND will include one or more clinical protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.
An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. A clinical hold may occur at any time during the life of an IND and may affect one or more specific studies or all studies conducted under the IND. Occasionally, clinical holds are imposed due to manufacturing issues that may present safety issues for the clinical study subjects.
Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA
The clinical investigation of an investigational new drug is divided into three phases that typically are conducted sequentially but may overlap or be combined. The three phases are as follows:
Phase 1. Phase 1 includes initial clinical trials introducing an investigational new drug into humans and may be conducted in subjects with the target disease or healthy volunteers. These trials are designed to determine the metabolism and pharmacologic actions of the drug in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness.
Phase 2. Phase 2 includes the controlled clinical trials conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug candidate for a particular indication or indications in subjects with the disease or condition under study and to determine the common short-term side effects and risks associated with the drug. Phase 2 trials are typically well controlled, closely monitored, and conducted in a relatively small number of subjects.
Phase 3. Phase 3 trials are typically large trials performed after preliminary evidence suggesting effectiveness of the drug candidate has been obtained. They are intended to gather additional information about the effectiveness and safety that is needed to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide an adequate basis for physician labeling and product marketing approval. Phase 3 trials usually are conducted at geographically dispersed clinical study sites.
A clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA. Human clinical trials are inherently uncertain and Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be successfully completed.
A pivotal trial is a clinical trial that is believed to satisfy FDA requirements for the evaluation of a product candidate’s safety and efficacy such that it can be used, alone or with other pivotal or non-pivotal trials, to support regulatory approval. Generally, pivotal trials are Phase 3 trials, but they may be Phase 2 trials if the design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in an area of unmet medical need.
Clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with the FDA’s GCP requirements. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, research subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be
21
evaluated. Each protocol, and any subsequent material amendment to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA annually. Sponsors also must report to the FDA serious and unexpected adverse reactions in a timely manner, any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigation brochure or any findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product or therapeutic candidate. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, via a clinical hold, or impose other sanctions if it believes that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. An institutional review board, or IRB, is responsible for ensuring that human subjects in clinical studies are protected from inappropriate study risks. An IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution and must also approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each research subject or the subject’s legal representative, monitor the trial until completed and otherwise comply with IRB regulations. The IRB also may halt a study, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with GCP or the IRB’s requirements, or if the investigational new drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
During the development of a new drug product candidate, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points; specifically, prior to the submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meeting at the end of Phase 2 to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial that they believe will support the approval of the new therapeutic.
Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as “Phase 4” clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, FDA may mandate the performance of “Phase 4” clinical trials.
Concurrent with clinical trials, sponsors usually complete additional animal safety studies, develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing commercial quantities of the product candidate in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other criteria, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the finished drug product. Additionally, 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.
Marketing Application Submission and FDA Review
Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, detailed information on the product candidate is submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug for one or more indications. An NDA includes all relevant data available from pertinent nonclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information on the product candidate’s chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, or CMC, and proposed labeling, among other things. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for its intended use to the satisfaction of the FDA.
Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, each NDA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for prescription drug products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the applicant is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.
Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from receipt in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA for a drug that is not a new molecular entity, and six months from the receipt date for an application with priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification and a sponsor’s process to respond to such inquiries. As a result, the NDA review process can be very lengthy. Most innovative drug products (other than biological products) obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA, commonly referred to as a traditional or "full NDA." In 1984, with
22
passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, that established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs based on an innovator or “reference” product, Congress also enacted Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, which provides a hybrid pathway combining features of a traditional NDA and a generic drug application. Section 505(b)(2) enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and efficacy data for an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. Section 505(b)(2) NDAs may provide an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products; for example, an applicant may be seeking approval to market a previously approved drug for new indications or for a new patient population that would require new clinical data to demonstrate safety or effectiveness. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA in which the applicant relies, at least in part, on information from studies made to show whether a drug is safe or effective that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use. A Section 505(b)(2) applicant may eliminate or reduce the need to conduct certain pre-clinical or clinical studies, if it can establish that reliance on studies conducted for a previously-approved product is scientifically appropriate. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements, including nonclinical and clinical studies, to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all or some of the labeled indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication for which the Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has submitted data.
The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs it receives, whether submitted under Section 505(b)(1) or Section 505(b)(2), to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any NDA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission, and may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA has 60 days after submission of an NDA to conduct an initial review to determine whether it is sufficient to accept for filing. If the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, whether it has an acceptable purity profile and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. During its review of an NDA, the FDA may refer the application to an advisory committee of independent experts for a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides 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 typically follows such recommendations. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA or its advisory committee may interpret data differently than the NDA sponsor interprets the same data. The FDA may also re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process.
Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving the NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements and to assure the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. To ensure cGMP and GCP compliance by its employees and third-party contractors, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control.
The FDA also may require the submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, plan if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the product. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS plan is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS plan. The FDA will not approve an NDA without a REMS plan, if required.
After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities where the drug product or its API will be produced and the clinical trial sites, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or, in some cases, a complete response letter, or CRL, that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the agency. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A
23
CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter to the applicant. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, the FDA nevertheless may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.
Even if a drug product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific indications and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as “Phase 4” clinical trials, designed to further assess a product’s safety and effectiveness, and/or testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.
Special FDA Programs to Facilitate and Expedite Development and Review of Certain New Drugs
The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited development or review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs include, but are not limited to, fast track designation, QIDP designation, and priority review designation. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than could occur under standard FDA procedures for interacting with and responding to product sponsors during development and regulatory review.
To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. A drug that is designated as a qualified infectious disease product (“QIDP”) is also eligible for fast track status. Fast track designation provides opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the NDA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and the FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The FDA may decide to rescind the fast track designation if it determines that the qualifying criteria no longer apply. In addition, fast track designation may be withdrawn by the sponsor or rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.
FDASIA also included the Generating Antibiotics Incentives Now Act, or the GAIN Act, which directed FDA to implement QIDP designation program. The GAIN Act created incentives for the development of antibacterial and antifungal drug products for the treatment of serious or life-threatening infections. A therapeutic candidate designated as a QIDP is eligible for fast track designation, and the first marketing application submitted for a specific drug product and indication for which QIDP designation was granted will be granted priority review. A subsequent application from the same sponsor for the same product and indication will receive priority review designation only if it otherwise meets the criteria for priority review. As discussed further below under “New Drug Marketing Exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments & GAIN Exclusivity Extension - Qualified Infectious Disease Product Exclusivity,” the GAIN Act also provides the possibility of a five-year exclusivity extension that is added to any other marketing exclusivity for which a QIDP-designated drug qualifies upon FDA approval.
Finally, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition,
24
elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.
Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, QIDP designation, and priority review do not change the standards for marketing approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.
From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.
Post-Approval Requirements for Prescription Drugs
Following approval of a new drug product, the manufacturer and the approved drug are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.
Moreover, if there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or an NDA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials. In particular, securing FDA approval for new indications is similar to the process for approval of the original indication and requires, among other things, submitting data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the product’s safety and efficacy in the new indication. Even if such trials are conducted, the FDA may not approve any expansion of the labeled indications for use in a timely fashion, or at all. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for that are now assessed as program fees for certain NDA-approved drugs. The most recent, 2017 reauthorization of PDUFA restructured the prescription drug user fee program to eliminate the previously collected establishment and supplemental application fees.
In addition, FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and some state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process, specifications or container closure system for an approved drug product are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require, among other things, the investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and the imposition of reporting and documentation requirements upon the NDA sponsor and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved drug product. Accordingly, both sponsors and manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance and other aspects of quality control and quality assurance, and to ensure ongoing compliance with other statutory requirements the FDCA, such as the requirements for making manufacturing changes to an approved NDA.
Accordingly, even after a new drug approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later 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 trials
25
to assess new safety risks; or the imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS plan. Other potential consequences of regulatory non-compliance 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 other enforcement-related letters or clinical holds on post-approval clinical trials;
• refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs;
• product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products;
• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties;
• consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment, or exclusion from federal health care programs; or
• mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information.
In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to a variety of federal and state laws, the most recent of which is still in the process of being phased in to the U.S. supply chain and regulatory framework. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987, or PDMA, was the first federal law to set minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states and to regulate the distribution of drug samples. Today, both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Congress more recently enacted the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, which made significant amendments to the FDCA, including by replacing certain provisions from the PDMA pertaining to wholesale distribution of prescription drugs with a more comprehensive statutory scheme. The DSCSA now requires uniform national standards for wholesale distribution and, for the first time, for third-party logistics providers; it also provides for preemption of certain state laws in the areas of licensure and prescription drug traceability. The comprehensive system envisioned by this law is being implemented both by the FDA and those various stakeholders towards the shared goal of building an interoperable electronic system to identify and trace prescription drugs distributed in the United States for enhanced supply chain security. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers (primarily pharmacies) over a 10‑year period that is expected to culminate in November 2023.
FDA Review and Approval of Medical Devices
Medical devices also are strictly regulated by the FDA in the United States. Under the FDCA, a medical device is defined as “an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component, part or accessory which is, among other things: intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals; or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes.” This definition provides a clear distinction between a medical device and other FDA-regulated products such as drugs. If the primary intended use of a medical product is achieved through chemical action or by being metabolized by the body, the product is usually a drug or biologic. If not, it is generally a medical device.
Unless an exemption applies, a new medical device may not be marketed in the United States unless and until it has been cleared through the premarket notification, or 510(k), process, or approved by the FDA pursuant to a premarket approval application, or PMA. The information that must be submitted to the FDA in order to obtain clearance or approval to market a new medical device varies depending on how the medical device is classified by the FDA. As medical devices have become increasingly connected to the Internet, hospital networks, and other medical devices to provide features that improve health care and patient accessibility, FDA and other regulatory authorities have recognized that those same features also increase the risk of potential cybersecurity threats. These types of medical devices may be vulnerable to security breaches, potentially impacting the safety and effectiveness of the device, and accordingly device manufacturers are responsible for identifying cybersecurity risks and hazards associated with their products. In recent years, the FDA has increased its scrutiny of this issue as part of the review and marketing authorization process for new medical devices; the agency also monitors reports of cybersecurity risks as part of its post-marketing device surveillance activities.
Medical devices are classified into one of three classes on the basis of the controls deemed by the FDA to be necessary to reasonably ensure their safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are those low risk devices for
26
which reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness can be provided by adherence to the FDA’s general controls for medical devices, which include applicable portions of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, or QSR; facility registration and product listing; reporting of adverse medical events and malfunctions; and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising and promotional materials. Most Class I devices are exempt from premarket regulation; however, some Class I devices require premarket clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) process.
Class II devices are moderate risk devices and are subject to the FDA’s general controls, and any other special controls, such as performance standards, post-market surveillance, and FDA guidelines, deemed necessary by the FDA to provide reasonable assurance of the devices’ safety and effectiveness. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for most Class II devices is accomplished through the 510(k) process, although some Class II devices are exempt from the 510(k) requirements. To obtain 510(k) clearance, a sponsor must submit to the FDA a premarket notification demonstrating that the device is substantially equivalent to a device that is already legally marketed in the United States and for which a PMA was not required (i.e., a Class II device). The device to which the sponsor’s device is compared for the purpose of determining substantial equivalence is called a “predicate device.” The FDA’s goal is to make a substantial equivalence determination within 90 days of FDA’s receipt of the 510(k) application, but it often takes longer if the FDA requests additional information. Most 510(k)s do not require supporting data from clinical trials, but the FDA may request such data. After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, will require a new clearance or possibly a pre-market approval. Premarket notifications are subject to user fees, unless a specific exemption applies.
Class III devices are deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk to patients, such as those for which reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness cannot be assured solely by the general controls and special controls described above and that are life-sustaining or life-supporting. All Class III devices must be reviewed and approved by the FDA through the PMA process. A PMA must be supported by extensive data including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trials, manufacturing and labeling to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After a PMA is sufficiently complete, the FDA will accept the application for filing and begin an in‑depth review of the submitted information. By statute, the FDA has 180 days to review the accepted application, although review of the application generally can take between one and three years. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided. Also during the review period, an advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA may be convened to review and evaluate the application and provide recommendations to the FDA as to the approvability of the device. Although the FDA is not bound by the advisory panel decision, it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. In addition, the FDA will conduct a preapproval inspection of the manufacturing facility to ensure compliance with the QSR. New premarket approval applications or premarket approval application supplements are also required for product modifications that affect the safety and efficacy of the device. PMA (and supplemental PMAs) are subject to significantly higher user fees than are 510(k) premarket notifications.
Medical device types that the FDA has not previously classified as Class I, II or III are automatically classified into Class III regardless of the level of risk they ultimately pose to patients and/or users. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a new route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification procedure. This procedure allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II based on a benefit-risk analysis demonstrating the device actually presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA application. Prior to the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, or FDASIA, a medical device could only be eligible for de novo classification if the manufacturer first submitted a 510(k) premarket notification and received a determination from the FDA that the device was not substantially equivalent. FDASIA streamlined the de novo classification pathway by permitting manufacturers to request de novo classification directly without first submitting a 510(k) premarket notification to the FDA and receiving a not substantially equivalent determination. Under the provisions enacted under FDASIA, the FDA is required to classify the device within 120 days following receipt of the de novo application however, the most recent FDA premarket review goals state that in fiscal year 2021, FDA will attempt to issue a decision on 65% of all de novo classification requests received within 150 days of receipt. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls that are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. In addition, the FDA may reject the reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device
27
that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or determines that the device is not low to moderate risk or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed. De novo reclassification requests are also subject to user fees, unless a specific exemption applies.
Clinical trials are almost always required to support a PMA application and are sometimes required for a de novo classification request or 510(k) pre-market notification. In order to conduct a clinical investigation involving human subjects for the purpose of demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of a medical device, an investigator acting on behalf of the company must, among other things, apply for and obtain IRB approval of the proposed investigation. In addition, if the clinical study involves a “significant risk” (as defined by the FDA) to human health, the company sponsoring the investigation must also submit and obtain FDA approval of an IDE. An IDE must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory testing results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE must be approved in advance by the FDA for a specified number of study participants, unless the product is deemed a non-significant risk device and eligible for abbreviated IDE requirements. Generally, clinical trials for a significant risk device may begin once the IDE is approved by the FDA and the study protocol and informed consent are approved by a duly-appointed IRB at each clinical trial site.
FDA’s IDE regulations govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion, and specify an array of GCP requirements, which include, among other things, recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. Clinical trials must further comply with the FDA’s regulations for IRB approval and for informed consent and other human subject protections. Required records and reports are subject to inspection by the FDA. The results of clinical testing may be unfavorable or, even if the intended safety and efficacy success criteria are achieved, may not be considered sufficient for the FDA to grant approval or clearance of a product.
Post-Marketing Requirements for Medical Devices
After a medical device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply that in some ways mirror the post-approval requirements for prescription drugs. These include, but are not limited to:
• submitting and updating establishment registration and device listings with the FDA;
• compliance with the QSR, which requires manufacturers to follow stringent design, testing, control, documentation, record maintenance, including maintenance of complaint and related investigation files, and other quality assurance controls during the manufacturing process;
• unannounced routine or for-cause device facility inspections by the FDA;
• labeling regulations, which prohibit the promotion of products for uncleared or unapproved (or “off-label”) uses and impose other restrictions relating to promotional activities;
• corrections and removal reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA field corrections or removals if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by a device or to remedy a violation of the FDCA that may present a risk to health; and
• post- market surveillance regulations, which apply to certain Class II or III devices when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device.
Under the FDA medical device reporting, or MDR, regulations, medical device manufacturers are required to report to the FDA information that a device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury if the malfunction of the device or a similar device of such manufacturer were to recur. The decision to file an MDR involves a judgment by the manufacturer. If the FDA disagrees with the manufacturer’s determination, the FDA can take enforcement action.
Additionally, the FDA has the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. The authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is reasonable probability that the device would cause serious adverse health consequences or death. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any distributed devices fail to meet established specifications, are otherwise misbranded or adulterated, or if any other material deficiency is found. The FDA requires that certain classifications of recalls be reported to the FDA within ten working days after the recall is initiated.
As with prescription drugs, the failure to comply with applicable device regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include any of the following sanctions:
28
• warning letters, fines, injunctions or civil penalties;
• recalls, detentions or seizures of products;
• operating restrictions;
• delays in the introduction of products into the market;
• total or partial suspension of production;
• delay or refusal of the FDA or other regulators to grant 510(k) clearance or PMA approvals of new products;
• withdrawals of marketing authorization; or
• in the most serious cases, criminal prosecution.
To ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, medical device manufacturers are subject to market surveillance and periodic, pre-scheduled and unannounced inspections by the FDA, and these inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of subcontractors and third-party component suppliers.
FDA Review and Approval Process for Combination Products
A combination product is a product composed of a combination of two or more FDA-regulated product components or products, e.g., drug-device or biologic-device. Such products often raise regulatory, policy and review management challenges because they integrate components that are regulated under different types of regulatory requirements and by different FDA Centers, namely, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, or CDER, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, or CDRH, or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER. Differences in regulatory pathways for each component can impact the regulatory processes for all aspects of product development and management, including preclinical testing, clinical investigation, marketing applications, manufacturing and quality control, adverse event reporting, promotion and advertising, and post-approval modifications. Specifically, under regulations issued by the FDA, a combination product may be:
• a product comprised of two or more regulated components that are physically, chemically, or otherwise combined or mixed and produced as a single entity;
• two or more separate products packaged together in a single package or as a unit and comprised of drug and device products;
• a drug or device packaged separately that according to its investigational plan or proposed labeling is intended for use only with an approved individually specified drug or device where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect and where upon approval of the proposed product the labeling of the approved product would need to be changed, e.g., to reflect a change in intended use, dosage form, strength, route of administration, or significant change in dose; or
• any investigational drug or device packaged separately that according to its proposed labeling is for use only with another individually specified investigational drug, device, or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect.
The FDA’s Office of Combination Products, or OCP, was established to provide prompt determination of the FDA Center with primary jurisdiction over the review and regulation of a combination product; ensure timely and effective premarket review by overseeing the timeliness of and coordinating reviews involving more than one center; ensure consistent and appropriate post-market regulation; resolve disputes regarding review timeliness; and review/revise agreements, guidance and practices specific to the assignment of combination products.
OCP determines which Center will have primary jurisdiction for the combination product, referred to as the Lead Center, based on the combination product’s “primary mode of action,” or PMOA. A mode of action is the means by which a product achieves an intended therapeutic effect or action. The PMOA is the mode of action that provides the most important therapeutic action of the combination product, or the mode of action expected to make the greatest contribution to the overall intended therapeutic effects of the combination product. The Lead Center has primary responsibility for the review and regulation of a combination product; however a second Center is often involved in the review process, especially to provide input regarding the “secondary” component(s). In most instances, the Lead Center applies its usual regulatory pathway. For example, a drug-device combination product assigned to CDER will typically be reviewed under an NDA, while a drug-device combination product assigned to CDRH is typically reviewed under through a 510(k), PMA, or de novo reclassification request.
Often it is difficult for OCP to determine with reasonable certainty the most important therapeutic action of the combination product. In those difficult cases, OCP will consider consistency with other combination products raising similar types of safety and effectiveness questions, or which Center has the most expertise to evaluate the
29
most significant safety and effectiveness questions raised by the combination product. A sponsor may use a voluntary formal process, known as a Request for Designation, when the product classification is unclear or in dispute, to obtain a binding decision as to which center will regulate the combination product. If the sponsor objects to that decision, it may request that the agency reconsider that decision.
Combination products are subject to FDA user fees based on the type of application submitted for the product’s premarket approval or clearance. For example, a combination product for which an NDA is submitted is subject to the NDA fee under the PDUFA. Likewise, a combination product for which a PMA is submitted is subject to the PMA fee under the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002.
Since a combination product incorporates two or more components that have different regulatory requirements, a combination product manufacturer must comply with all cGMP and QSR requirements that apply to each component. The FDA has issued a combination product cGMP regulation, along with final guidance, describing two approaches a combination product manufacturer may follow to demonstrate compliance. Under these two options, the manufacturer demonstrates compliance with: (1) All cGMP regulations applicable to each separate regulated component included in the combination product; or (2) either the drug cGMPs or the QSR, as well as with specified provisions from the other of these two sets of requirements (also called the “streamlined approach”). In addition, The 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, which became law in December 2016 and, among other things, amended provisions of the FDCA, clarified that for drug-device combination products comprising an FDA-approved drug and device primary mode of action, Hatch-Waxman Act requirements apply. Accordingly, a potential patent dispute regarding the listed drug that is being referenced by the combination product sponsor may result in the delay of the 510(k) clearance or PMA approval of the combination product. Furthermore, the Cures Act amendments applied Hatch-Waxman Act exclusivity provisions (e.g., new chemical entity and new clinical investigation) to the device clearance and approval process for combination products with a device primary mode of action.
New Drug Marketing Exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments & GAIN Exclusivity Extension
Orange Book Listing & Patent Certification
As noted above, Congress created the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway in 1984 as part of the Hatch-Waxman Act amendments to the FDCA. At the same time, it also established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they cannot include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer must rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug, or RLD. Unlike the ANDA pathway, which does not allow applicants to submit new clinical data other than bioavailability or bioequivalence data, the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway does not preclude the possibility that a follow-on applicant would need to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies to demonstrate safety or effectiveness of the proposed change(s) being made to a previously approved drug.
In order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, the strength of the drug and the conditions of use of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.” Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.
30
As part of the NDA review and approval process, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent that has claims that cover the applicant’s product or method of therapeutic use. Upon approval of a new drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential follow-on competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA that relies in full or in part on the reference product.
When an ANDA applicant submits its application to the FDA, it is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the ANDA 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. Moreover, to the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant also is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the NDA-approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.
If the follow-on applicant does not challenge the innovator’s listed patents, FDA will not approve the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application 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 follow-on applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA 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 or 505(b)(2) NDA 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/505(b)(2) applicant.
Non-Patent Exclusivity
An ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivities listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product have expired. The Hatch-Waxman Act amendments to the FDCA provided a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity, or NCE. For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.
The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of data exclusivity if an NDA or NDA supplement includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application or supplement. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosage forms, route of administration or combination of ingredients. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; rather, this three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active ingredient.
Five-year and three-year exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; however, an applicant submitting a traditional NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
31
Qualified Infectious Disease Product Exclusivity
Under the GAIN Act amendments to the FDCA, the FDA may designate a product as a QIDP for a specific use for which it is being studied, upon the written request of a sponsor at any time prior to submission of a marketing application. In order to qualify for designation as a QIDP, the drug product candidate must qualify as an antibiotic or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by either (i) an antibiotic or antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens, or (ii) a so-called “qualifying pathogen” found on a list of potentially dangerous, drug-resistant organisms established and maintained by the FDA. In addition to the expedited review benefits that a QIDP-designated drug candidate may be eligible for (described above under “Special FDA Programs to Facilitate and Expedite Development and Review of Certain New Drugs”), such a drug that is approved for the use for which the QIDP designation was granted will receive a five-year extension to any non-patent marketing exclusivity period for which the drug qualified upon approval, such as a five-year NCE exclusivity or three-year new clinical data exclusivity. This so-called GAIN exclusivity extension is not available to a QIDP-designated drug that has previously received the five-year extension period, such as when an applicant is seeking approval for a new indication or new strength for a marketed infectious disease product.
Patent Term Extension
A patent claiming a prescription drug or medical device for which FDA approval is granted may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the FDCA, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review provided that certain statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug or medical device is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a new FDA-regulated medical product is typically one-half the time between the date a clinical investigation on human beings is begun and the submission date of an application for premarket approval of the product, plus the time between the submission date of an application for approval of the product and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the marketing approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.
Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information
Sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs and medical devices, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs. Although sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, disclosure of the results can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. The NIH’s Final Rule on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017, and both NIH and the FDA have recently signaled the government’s willingness to begin enforcing those requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors.
Other U.S. Health Care Laws and Compliance Requirements
In addition to FDA requirements, several other types of state and federal laws apply and will apply to our operations. These laws include, among others, health care information and data privacy protection laws, transparency laws, and fraud and abuse laws, such as:
• The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, providing, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce either the referral of an individual, for an item or service or the purchasing or ordering of a good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute is subject to evolving interpretations. In the past,
32
the government has enforced the federal Anti-Kickback Statute to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham consulting and other financial arrangements with physicians. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. 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 civil False Claims Act;
• The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalties laws prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the U.S. government, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. government. Actions under these laws may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. The federal government uses these laws, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the U.S., for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices;
• The U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created new federal, civil and criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up 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. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;
• The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the ACA (defined below), among other things, imposes reporting requirements on manufacturers of FDA-approved drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies covered by Medicare or Medicaid to report, on an annual basis, to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, chiropractors and, beginning in 2022 for payments and other transfers of value provided in the previous year, certain advanced non-physician health care practitioners) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members in such manufacturers;
• HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations impose specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities, which include certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions; and
• State and local laws which require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.
The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the aforementioned federal anti-kickback and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. We may be subject to state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. In addition, we may be subject to reporting requirements under state transparency laws, as well as state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government that otherwise restricts certain payments that may be made to health care providers and entities.
33
Moreover, in November 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finalized significant changes to the regulations implementing the Anti-Kickback Statute, as well as the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law) and the civil monetary penalty rules regarding beneficiary inducements, with the goal of offering the healthcare industry more flexibility and reducing the regulatory burden associated with those fraud and abuse laws, particularly with respect to value-based arrangements among industry participants.
To the extent we commercialize or co-promote our products, if approved, and because such products could be reimbursed under federal and other governmental health care programs, we expect to develop a compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the rules and health care program requirements. Although compliance programs and adherence thereto may mitigate the risk of violation of and subsequent investigation and prosecution for violations of the laws described above, the risks cannot be eliminated entirely. Ensuring that our current and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If we or our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including monetary damages, fines, individual imprisonment, disgorgement, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with any of these laws, and/or the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.
Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement
Sales of our drug and drug-device combination products, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health care programs, private health insurers, managed health care providers, and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging drug prices and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, even if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.
Significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status for newly approved prescription products, including coding, coverage and payment. Sales of any products for which we obtain marketing approval will depend in part on coverage and adequate payment from third-party payors. There is no uniform policy requirement for coverage and reimbursement for prescription products among third-party payors in the United States; therefore coverage and reimbursement for prescription products can differ significantly from payor to payor.
In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Payment rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower cost products that are already reimbursed and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by third-party payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. In the U.S., third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, but they also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations. Accordingly, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product.
34
Accordingly, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate payment will be applied consistently or obtained. The process for determining whether a payor will cover and how much it will reimburse a product may be separate from the process of seeking approval of the product or for setting the price of the product. Even if reimbursement is provided, market acceptance of our products may be adversely affected if the amount of payment for our products proves to be unprofitable for health care providers or less profitable than alternative treatments or if administrative burdens make our products less desirable to use.
Additionally, the containment of health care costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of drug products have been a focus in this effort. For example, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. We expect that federal, state and local governments in the U.S. will continue to consider legislation directed at lowering the total cost of health care. Individual states in the United States have increasingly passed legislation and implemented 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, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers, or PBMs, and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively referred to as the ACA, enacted in March 2010, has had and is expected to continue to have a significant impact on the health care industry. The ACA, among other things, imposes a significant annual fee on certain companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. The ACA also increased the Medicaid rebate rate and the volume of rebated drugs has been expanded to include beneficiaries in Medicaid managed care organizations. The ACA also expanded the 340B drug discount program (excluding orphan drugs), including a 50% discount on brand name drugs for Medicare Part D participants in the coverage gap, and revised the definition of “average manufacturer price” for reporting purposes, which could increase the amount of the Medicaid drug rebates paid to states. It also contains substantial provisions intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of health care spending, enhance remedies against health care fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the health care industry, impose new taxes and fees on pharmaceutical manufacturers, and impose additional health policy reforms, any or all of which may affect our business.
Since its enactment there have been judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Certain members of the U.S. Congress have indicated that they may continue to seek to modify, repeal or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the ACA. While Congress has to date not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 repealed the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate." In December 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court's finding that the individual mandate in the ACA is unconstitutional following removal of the penalty provision from the law. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court to determine if other reforms enacted as part of the ACA, but not specifically related to the individual mandate or health insurance, could be severed from the rest of the ACA so as not to have the law declared invalid in its entirety. In March 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case and, in November 2020, heard oral arguments. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be issued in spring 2021. It is unclear how this litigation and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will affect the implementation of that law, the pharmaceutical industry more generally, and our business. We continue to evaluate the potential impact of the ACA and its possible repeal or replacement on our business.
Other legislative changes have also been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, which
35
was signed into law on March 27, 2020 and was designed to provide financial support and resources to individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one year, through 2030, in order to offset the added expense of the 2020 cancellation. The 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act was subsequently signed into law on December 27, 2020 and extends the CARES Act suspension period to March 31, 2021.
The Biden Administration, which assumed control of the Executive Branch on January 20, 2021, has indicated that lowering prescription drug prices is a priority, but we do not yet know what steps the administration will take or whether such steps will be successful, It is uncertain whether and how future legislation or regulatory changes could affect prospects for our product candidates or what actions federal, state, or commercial payors for pharmaceutical products may take in response to any such health care reform proposals or legislation. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures reforms may prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates.
Data Privacy and the Protection of Personal Information
We are subject to laws and regulations governing data privacy and the protection of personal information including health information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues which will continue to affect our business. In the United States, we may be subject to state security breach notification laws, state laws protecting the privacy of health and personal information and federal and state consumer protections laws that regulate the collection, use, disclosure and transmission of personal information. These laws overlap and often conflict and each of these laws is subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations we could be subject to penalties or sanctions, including criminal penalties. Our customers and research partners must comply with laws governing the privacy and security of health information, including HIPAA, HITECH and state health information privacy laws. If we knowingly obtain health information that is protected under HIPAA, called “protected health information,” our customers or research collaborators may be subject to enforcement and we may have direct liability for the unlawful receipt of protected health information or for aiding and abetting a HIPAA violation.
State laws protecting health and personal information are becoming increasingly stringent. For example, California has implemented the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act that imposes restrictive requirements regulating the use and disclosure of health information and other personally identifiable information, and California has recently adopted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA. The CCPA mirrors a number of the key provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, described below. The CCPA establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses by creating an expanded definition of personal information, establishing new data privacy rights for consumers in the State of California, imposing special rules on the collection of consumer data from minors, and creating a new and potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the CCPA and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches. Additionally, a new privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, was approved by California voters in the election on November 3, 2020. The CPRA will modify the CCPA significantly, potentially resulting in further uncertainty, additional costs and expenses in an effort to comply and additional potential for harm and liability for failure to comply. Other states in the U.S. are considering privacy laws similar to CCPA. In February 2021, the Virginia legislature became the second to enact a state-specific law called the Consumer Data Protection Act, which includes key differences from California’s law, further complicating compliance by industry and other stakeholders.
Health Care Reform and Potential Changes to Laws and Regulations
FDA and other regulatory authority policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, in August 2017, the FDA Reauthorization Act was signed into law, which reauthorized the FDA’s user fee programs and included additional drug and device provisions that build on the Cures Act enacted in December 2016. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
36
Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in health care systems with the stated goals of containing health care costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products and services, implementing reductions in Medicare and other health care funding and applying new payment methodologies. In addition to the sweeping reforms contained in the ACA (summarized above in the section entitled “Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement”), other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States that may affect health care expenditures. For example, the 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-94) included a piece of bipartisan legislation called the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act, or the CREATES Act. The CREATES Act aims to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers have improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS program for certain products, to deny generic product developers access to samples of brand products. Because generic product developers need samples to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some have attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of generic products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Whether and how generic product developments will use this new pathway, as well as the likely outcome of any legal challenges to provisions of the CREATES Act, remain highly uncertain and its potential effects on our future commercial products are unknown.
Other new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could have an adverse effect on customers for our approved product and, accordingly, our financial operations. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services. Moreover, if we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our therapeutic candidates may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.
Government Regulation Outside the U.S.
In addition to regulations in the U.S., we may be subject to a variety of regulations in foreign jurisdictions that govern, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products, if approved, either directly or through our distribution partners. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing and sale of the product in those countries. The foreign regulatory approval process includes all of the risks associated with the FDA approval described above, and the time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Some foreign jurisdictions have a drug product approval process similar to that in the U.S., which requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of clinical studies. In Europe, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. To obtain regulatory approval of a therapeutic product candidate under European Union, or EU, regulatory systems, we would be required to submit a Marketing Authorisation Application, which is similar to the NDA, except that, among other things, there are country-specific document requirements. For countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, and recently the United Kingdom, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product approval, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. Moreover, some nations may not accept clinical studies performed for U.S. approval to support approval in their countries or require that additional studies be performed on natives of their countries. In addition, in certain foreign markets, the pricing of drug products is subject to government control and reimbursement may in some cases be unavailable or insufficient. We face the risk that the resulting prices would be insufficient to generate an acceptable return to us or any future partner of ours. 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.
37
International marketing and distribution of medical devices are also subject to foreign government regulations, which may vary substantially from country to country. There is a trend towards harmonization of quality system standards for medical device products among the European Union, United States, Canada and various other industrialized countries.
As of January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom is no longer a member state of the EU, and therefore a separate marketing authorization application and approval will be required to market a medicinal product in the U.K. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is the U.K.’s standalone pharmaceutical and medical devices regulator.
Review and Approval of Medicinal Products in the European Union
As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed in the EU only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained. Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls. Also similar to the United States, when a drug-device combination product’s principal intended action is accomplished by the drug constituent part, the EU regulates the combination product as a medicinal product.
Pursuant to the European Clinical Trials Directive, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the EU has been implemented through national legislation of the member states. Under this system, an applicant must obtain approval from the competent national authority of an EU member state in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. Clinical trial applications must be accompanied by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by the European Clinical Trials Directive and corresponding national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. In April 2014, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation) was adopted and it is anticipated to come into application in late 2021. The Clinical Trials Regulation will be directly applicable in all the EU Member States, repealing the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. Conduct of all clinical trials performed in the EU will continue to be bound by currently applicable provisions until the new Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable. The extent to which ongoing clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation will depend on when the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable and on the duration of the individual clinical trial. If a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial.
The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the “EU portal”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.
To obtain marketing approval of a drug in the EU, an applicant must submit an marketing authorization application (“MAA”) either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all EU member states, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products (such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”). Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop-clocks.
38
The decentralized procedure is available to applicants who wish to market a product in specific EU member states where such product has not received marketing approval in any EU member states before. The decentralized procedure provides for an applicant to apply to one-member state to assess the application (the reference member state) and specifically list other member states in which it wishes to obtain approval (concerned member states). Under this procedure, an applicant submits an application based on identical dossiers and related materials, including a draft summary of product characteristics, and draft labelling and package leaflet, to the reference member state and each concerned member state. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment report and drafts of the related materials within 210 days after receipt of a valid application which is then reviewed and approved commented on by the concerned member states. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report and related materials, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.
In the EU, only products for which marketing authorizations have been granted may be promoted. A marketing authorization is valid for five years in principle and the marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).
Moreover, even if authorized to be marketed in the EU, prescription-only medicines may only be promoted to health care professionals, not the general public. All promotion should be in accordance with the particulars listed in the summary of product characteristics. Promotional materials must also comply with various laws, and codes of conduct developed by pharmaceutical industry bodies in the EU which govern (among other things) the training of sales staff, promotional claims and their justification, comparative advertising, misleading advertising, endorsements, and (where permitted) advertising to the general public. Failure to comply with these requirements could lead to the imposition of penalties by the competent authorities of the EU member states. The penalties could include warnings, orders to discontinue the promotion of the drug product, seizure of promotional materials, fines and possible imprisonment.
In addition, medical devices marketed in Europe currently are required to comply with the Essential Requirements defined in Annex I to the EU Medical Devices Directive, or MDD, a coordinated system for the authorization of medical devices. The directives and standards regulate the design, manufacture, clinical trials, labeling and adverse event reporting for medical devices. Devices that comply with the requirements of a relevant directive are entitled to bear the CE conformity marking, indicating that the device conforms to the essential requirements of the applicable directives. The method of assessing conformity varies depending on the class of the product, but normally involves a combination of self-assessment by the manufacturer and a third-party assessment by a “Notified Body.” This third-party assessment may consist of an audit of the manufacturer’s quality system and specific testing of the manufacturer’s product. An assessment by a Notified Body of one country within the European Union is required in order for a manufacturer to commercially distribute the product throughout the EU.
In 2017, European Union regulatory bodies finalized a new Medical Device Regulation (“MDR”), which replaced the existing MDD framework and provided three years for transition and compliance, for a final effective date of May 26, 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the European Parliament voted in April 2020 to postpone implementation of the MDR by one year, giving the medical device industry and Notified Bodies until May 26, 2021 to come into compliance assuming no additional delays are needed. The MDR changes several aspects of the existing regulatory framework for medical device marketing in Europe and is expected to result in increased regulatory oversight of all medical devices marketed in the EU, which may, in turn, increase the costs, time and requirements that need to be met in order to place an innovative or high-risk medical device on the European market.
Review and Approval of Medicinal Products in Canada
Health Canada is the Canadian federal authority that regulates, evaluates and monitors the safety, effectiveness, and quality of drugs, medical devices, and other therapeutic products available to Canadians. Health
39
Canada’s regulatory process for review, approval and regulatory oversight of products is similar to the regulatory process conducted by the FDA. To initiate clinical testing of a drug candidate in human subjects in Canada, a CTA must be filed with and approved by Health Canada. In addition, all federally regulated trials must be approved and monitored by research ethics boards. The review boards study and approve study-related documents and monitor trial data.
Prior to being given market authorization for a drug product, a manufacturer must present substantive scientific evidence of a product’s safety, efficacy and quality as required by the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and its associated regulations, including the Food and Drug Regulations. This information is usually submitted in the form of a New Drug Submission, or NDS. Health Canada reviews the submitted information, sometimes using external consultants and advisory committees, to evaluate the potential benefits and risks of a drug. If after of the review, the conclusion is that the patient benefits outweigh the risks associated with the drug, the drug is issued a Drug Identification Number (“DIN”), followed by a Notice of Compliance (“NOC"), which permits the market authorization holder (i.e., the NOC and DIN holder) to market the drug in Canada. Drugs granted an NOC may be subject to additional postmarket surveillance and reporting requirements.
All establishments engaged in the fabrication, packaging/labeling, importation, distribution, and wholesale of drugs and operation of a testing laboratory relating to drugs are required to hold a Drug Establishment License to conduct one or more of the licensed activities unless expressly exempted under the Food and Drug Regulations. The basis for the issuance of a Drug Establishment License is to ensure the facility complies with cGMP as stipulated in the Food and Drug Regulations and as determined by cGMP inspection conducted by Health Canada. An importer of pharmaceutical products manufactured at foreign sites must also be able to demonstrate that the foreign sites comply with cGMP, and such foreign sites are included on the importer’s Drug Establishment License.
Regulatory obligations and oversight continue following the initial market approval of a pharmaceutical product. For example, every market authorization holder must report any new information received concerning adverse drug reactions, including timely reporting of serious adverse drug reactions that occur in Canada and any serious unexpected adverse drug reactions that occur outside of Canada. The market authorization holder must also notify Health Canada of any new safety and efficacy issues that it becomes aware of after the launch of a product.
The Canadian regulatory approval requirements for new drugs outlined above are similar to those of other major pharmaceutical markets. While the testing carried out in Canada is often acceptable for the purposes of regulatory submissions in other countries, individual regulatory authorities may request supplementary testing during their assessment of any submission. Therefore, the clinical testing conducted under Health Canada authorization or the approval of regulatory authorities of other countries may not be accepted by regulatory authorities outside Canada or other countries.
Health Canada has also implemented a similar process as the FDA for regulating combination products comprising both drug and device constituent parts. The agency considers the principal mechanism of action by which the claimed effect or purpose of the product is achieved, and then subjects the entire product to regulation under either the Food and Drug Regulations or the Medical Devices Regulations.
Rest of the World Regulation
In addition to regulations in the United States and Australia, EU, and Canada, we may become subject to a variety of regulations governing clinical studies and commercial sales and distribution of prescription drug and drug-device combination products in other jurisdictions around the world. These laws and regulations typically require the licensing of manufacturing and contract research facilities, carefully controlled research and testing of product candidates and governmental review and approval of results prior to marketing therapeutic product candidates. Additionally, they may require adherence to the FDA’s GLPs, GCPs, and GMPs during manufacturing. The process of new drug approvals by regulators in the United States, Canada and the European Union are generally considered to be among the most rigorous in the world.
Whether or not FDA, EMA, or Health Canada approval is obtained for a product, we must obtain approval from the comparable regulatory authorities of other countries before we can commence clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for the FDA, EMA, or Health Canada approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. In
40
some international markets, additional clinical trials may be required prior to the filing or approval of marketing applications within the country.
Moreover, outside of the United States, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed to. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. In some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.
If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecution.
Europe – Data Privacy
On May 25, 2018, the GDPR went into effect, implementing a broad data protection framework that expanded the scope of EU data protection law, including to non-EU entities that process, or control the processing of, personal data relating to individuals located in the EU, including clinical trial data. The GDPR sets out a number of requirements that must be complied with when handling the personal data of European Union-based data subjects including: providing expanded disclosures about how their personal data will be used; higher standards for organizations to demonstrate that they have obtained valid consent or have another legal basis in place to justify their data processing activities; the obligation to appoint data protection officers in certain circumstances; new rights for individuals to be “forgotten” and rights to data portability, as well as enhanced current rights (e.g. access requests); the principal of accountability and demonstrating compliance through policies, procedures, training and audit; and a new mandatory data breach regime. In particular, medical or health data, genetic data and biometric data where the latter is used to uniquely identify an individual are all classified as “special category” data under the GDPR and afforded greater protection and require additional compliance obligations. Further, EU member states have a broad right to impose additional conditions – including restrictions – on these data categories. This is because the GDPR allows EU member states to derogate from the requirements of the GDPR mainly in regard to specific processing situations (including special category data and processing for scientific or statistical purposes). As the EU states continue to reframe their national legislation to harmonize with the GDPR, we will need to monitor compliance with all relevant EU member states’ laws and regulations, including where permitted derogations from the GDPR are introduced.
We will also be subject to evolving EU laws on data export, if we transfer data outside the EU to ourselves or third parties outside of the EU. The GDPR only permits exports of data outside the EU where there is a suitable data transfer solution in place to safeguard personal data (e.g. the European Union Commission approved Standard Contractual Clauses). On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union or the CJEU, issued a landmark opinion in the case Maximilian Schrems vs. Facebook (Case C-311/18), called Schrems II . This decision calls into question certain data transfer mechanisms as between the EU member states and the U.S. The CJEU is the highest court in Europe and the Schrems II decision heightens the burden on data importers to assess U.S. national security laws on their business and future actions of EU data protection authorities are difficult to predict. Consequently, there is some risk of any data transfers from the European Union being halted. If we have to rely on third parties to carry out services for us, including processing personal data on our behalf, we are required under the GDPR to enter into contractual arrangements to help ensure that these third parties only process such data according to our instructions and have sufficient security measures in place. Any security breach or non-compliance with our contractual terms or breach of applicable law by such third parties could result in enforcement actions, litigation, fines and penalties or adverse publicity and could cause customers to lose trust in us, which would have an adverse impact on our reputation and business. Any contractual arrangements requiring the transfer of personal data from the EU to us in the United States will require greater scrutiny and assessments as required under Schrems II and may have an adverse impact on cross-border transfers of personal data, or increase costs of compliance. The GDPR provides an enforcement authority to impose large penalties for noncompliance, including the potential for fines of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. We will be subject to the GDPR when we have a European Union presence or “establishment” (e.g., EU based subsidiary or operations), when conducting clinical trials with EU based data subjects, whether the trials are conducted directly by us or through a vendor or partner, or offering approved products or services to EU-based data subjects, regardless of whether involving a EU based subsidiary or operations.
41
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits U.S. corporations and their representatives from offering, promising, authorizing or making payments to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business abroad. The scope of the FCPA would include interactions with certain healthcare professionals in many countries, either directly or through third parties. Our present and future business has been and will continue to be subject to various other U.S. and foreign laws, rules and/or regulations.
Environmental, Health and Safety Regulation
We are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental, health and safety, or EHS, laws and regulations relating to, among other matters, safe working conditions, product stewardship, environmental protection, and handling or disposition of products, including those governing the generation, storage, handling, use, transportation, release, and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials, medical waste, and infectious materials that may be handled by our research laboratories. Some of these laws and regulations also require us to obtain licenses or permits to conduct our operations. If we fail to comply with such laws or obtain and comply with the applicable permits, we could face substantial fines or possible revocation of our permits or limitations on our ability to conduct our operations. Certain of our development and manufacturing activities involve use of hazardous materials, and we believe we are in compliance with the applicable environmental laws, regulations, permits, and licenses. However, we cannot ensure that EHS liabilities will not develop in the future. EHS laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent over time. Although the costs to comply with applicable laws and regulations, have not been material, we cannot predict the impact on our business of new or amended laws or regulations or any changes in the way existing and future laws and regulations are interpreted or enforced, nor can we ensure we will be able to obtain or maintain any required licenses or permits.
Employees
As of March 29, 2021, we had 23 employees. Sixteen of our employees are full-time and seven are part-time employees, 12 are in research and development and 11 are in general and administrative. Given the differing characteristics of our product candidates, our approach is to engage consultants with experience in varying specialties to help us develop such candidates. Our numerous consultants serve as an extension to our employee base. We believe this approach will enable us to access the expertise needed in a cost-efficient manner and without the need to rapidly increase the number of full-time employees and their associated costs.
Company Information
We were incorporated in Delaware in December 2005. Until July 2017, our corporate name was Cerulean Pharma Inc., or Cerulean. In July 2017, Cerulean completed a business combination with Daré Bioscience Operations, Inc., at which time we changed our name to “Daré Bioscience, Inc.” and began to focus on development of innovative, investigational products in women's health. We and our wholly-owned subsidiaries operate in one business segment.
Available Information
Our website is located at http://www.darebioscience.com . Information found on our website is not incorporated by reference into this report. We make our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, including our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments and exhibits to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, available free of charge on or through our website, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding our filings at http://www.sec.gov .
42
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.