10-K
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021
OR
☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO
Commission File Number 001-38978
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its Charter)
Delaware
47-4839948
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
26 Landsdowne Street
Cambridge , Massachusetts
02139
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: ( 617 ) 651-8851
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
Trading
Symbol(s)
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common stock, par value $0.001 per share
FULC
Nasdaq Global Market
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ NO ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ NO ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer
☐
Accelerated filer
☐
Non-accelerated filer
☒
Smaller reporting company
☒
Emerging growth company
☒
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES ☐ NO ☒
As of June 30, 2021, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on June 30, 2021, was approximately $ 248,910,889 .
The number of shares of registrant’s common stock outstanding as of February 24, 2022 was 40,637,216 .
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The registrant intends to file a definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A relating to the 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders within 120 days of the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 . Portions of such definitive proxy statement are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein.
Table of Contents
Page
PART I
Item 1.
Business
1
Item 1A.
Risk Factors
51
Item 1B.
Unresolved Staff Comments
92
Item 2.
Properties
92
Item 3.
Legal Proceedings
92
Item 4.
Mine Safety Disclosures
92
PART II
Item 5.
Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
93
Item 6.
Reserved
93
Item 7.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
94
Item 7A.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
106
Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
106
Item 9.
Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
106
Item 9A.
Controls and Procedures
107
Item 9B.
Other Information
108
Item 9C.
Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections
108
PART III
Item 10.
Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
109
Item 11.
Executive Compensation
109
Item 12.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
109
Item 13.
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
109
Item 14.
Principal Accountant Fees and Services
109
PART IV
Item 15.
Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
110
Item 16.
Form 10-K Summary
110
In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, unless otherwise stated or as the context otherwise requires, references to “Fulcrum,” “Fulcrum Therapeutics,” “the Company,” “we,” “us,” “our” and similar references refer to Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiary. The Fulcrum Therapeutics logo, FulcrumSeek and other trademarks or service marks of Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains registered marks, trademarks and trade names of other companies. All other trademarks, registered marks and trade names appearing herein are the property of their respective holders.
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views with respect to, among other things, our operations and financial performance. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans, objectives of management and expected market growth are forward-looking statements. The words "anticipate," "believe," "continue," "could," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "might," “outlook,” "plan," "potential," "predict," "project," "should," "target," "would," and the negative version of these words and other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Such forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Accordingly, there are or will be important factors that could cause actual outcomes or results to differ materially from those indicated in these statements. We believe these factors include but are not limited to those described under the “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” sections and include, among other things:
• our ongoing clinical trials of losmapimod and FTX-6058;
• the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on our business and operations, including our clinical trials and development plans, as well as our future financial results;
• the initiation, timing, progress and results of our drug target discovery screening programs;
• the initiation, timing, progress and results of our current and future preclinical studies and clinical trials and our research and development programs;
• our plans to develop and, if approved, subsequently commercialize losmapimod, FTX-6058 and any other product candidates, including in combination with other drugs and therapies;
• the timing of and our ability to submit applications for, and obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for losmapimod, FTX-6058 and any other product candidates;
• our expectations regarding our ability to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements with our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities;
• the potential advantages of our product candidates;
• the rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of our products, if our product candidates are approved;
• our estimates regarding the potential market opportunity for our product candidates;
• our commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and strategy;
• our intellectual property position;
• the progress and results of our collaborations with Acceleron Pharma Inc., or Acceleron, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., or Merck, and MyoKardia, Inc., or MyoKardia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company;
• our ability to identify additional products, product candidates or technologies with significant commercial potential that are consistent with our commercial objectives;
• our estimates regarding expenses, future revenue, timing of any future revenue, capital requirements and needs for additional financing;
• the impact of government laws and regulations;
• our competitive position;
• developments relating to our competitors and our industry;
• our ability to maintain and establish collaborations or obtain additional funding; and
• our expectations regarding the time during which we will be an emerging growth company or a smaller reporting company as defined under the federal securities laws.
i
We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in the "Risk Factors" section, that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, collaborations, joint ventures or investments we may make or enter into.
You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we have filed as exhibits to Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes statistical and other industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties as well as our own estimates of potential market opportunities. All of the market data used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K involves a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such data. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities for our product candidates include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research and other surveys, which may be based on a small sample size and may fail to accurately reflect market opportunities. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions.
SUMMARY RISK FACTORS
Our business is subject to a number of risks that if realized could materially affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and access to liquidity. These risks are discussed more fully in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our principal risks include the following:
• We have incurred significant losses since our inception. Our net loss was $80.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and $70.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. We expect to incur losses over the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $302.5 million.
• We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts. We expect to devote substantial financial resources to our ongoing and planned activities, particularly as we continue our clinical trials of losmapimod and FTX-6058 and continue research and development and initiate additional clinical trials of, and seek regulatory approval for, these and other product candidates.
• We are early in our development efforts, and we only have two product candidates in clinical trials. If we are unable to commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.
• We may not be successful in our efforts to use FulcrumSeek, our proprietary product engine to build a pipeline of product candidates. A key element of our strategy is to use FulcrumSeek to identify and validate cellular drug targets that can potentially modulate gene expression to address the root cause of genetically-defined rare diseases, with an initial focus on identifying small molecules specific to the identified cellular target.
• Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of future results. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.
• Because we are developing some of our product candidates for the treatment of diseases in which there is limited clinical experience and, in some cases, using new endpoints or methodologies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or other regulatory authorities may not consider the endpoints of our clinical trials to predict or provide clinically meaningful results.
ii
• The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has and may continue to affect our ability to initiate and complete current or future preclinical studies or clinical trials, disrupt regulatory activities or have other adverse effects on our business and operations. In addition, this pandemic may continue to adversely impact economies worldwide, which could result in adverse effects on our business and operations.
• If serious adverse events or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our development of some of our product candidates.
• We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.
• We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to manufacture our product candidates. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements as expected or if such organizations do not meet our supply requirements, development and/or commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed.
• We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, which may harm our business.
• We have entered into, and may in the future enter into, collaborations with third parties for the discovery, development or commercialization of product candidates, including our collaborations with Acceleron and MyoKardia. If our collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates and our business could be adversely affected.
• If we are unable to obtain, maintain, enforce and protect patent protection for our technology and product candidates or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates may be adversely affected.
• If we fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property licenses and funding arrangements with third parties, or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.
iii
PAR T I
Item 1. Bu siness.
Overview
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on improving the lives of patients with genetically defined rare diseases in areas of high unmet medical need. Our most advanced clinical product candidate, losmamipod, is in development to treat the root cause of facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, or FSHD. Our other clinical product candidate is FTX-6058, which is being developed for the treatment of certain hemoglobinopathies, including sickle cell disease, or SCD, and ß-thalassemia. We expect to initiate REACH, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-national Phase 3 clinical trial of losmapimod, our product candidate for FSHD, in the second quarter of 2022. We initiated a Phase 1b clinical trial of FTX-6058 in people with SCD in the fourth quarter of 2021, and we expect to report initial data from that Phase 1b trial in the second quarter of 2022. Additionally, we submitted an investigational new drug application, or IND, in the fourth quarter of 2021 for FTX-6058 in other select hemoglobinopathies, including ß-thalassemia, and expect to initiate a Phase 1b study in the second quarter of 2022.
We have developed a proprietary product engine, FulcrumSeek, that we employ to systematically identify and validate cellular drug targets that can potentially modulate gene expression to treat known root causes of genetically defined diseases. Our product engine integrates patient-derived tissue and disease-relevant cell models that we interrogate using our pharmacologically diverse and highly annotated small-molecule compound library and customized CRISPR and RNAi libraries. These screens generate tens of millions of data points and high-content imaging. We then apply computational biology and analytics to identify targets with specificity and selectivity accompanied by a comprehensive data set that significantly accelerates development. This approach led to the identification of both losmamipod for FSHD and FTX-6058 for hemoglobinopathies, as well as a robust discovery pipeline. We expect to nominate our next development candidate this year to support our fourth IND by the end of the first quarter of 2023.
Our most advanced product candidate, losmapimod, is a small molecule that we are developing for the treatment of FSHD, a rare, progressive and disabling disorder characterized by muscle degeneration and fat infiltration. Disease progression results in the accumulation of disability with many patients ultimately becoming dependent on wheelchairs and losing independence as their ability to perform activities of daily living decreases. Losmapimod selectively targets p38α/ß mitogen activated protein kinase, or p38α/ß. We utilized our product engine to discover that inhibition of p38α/ß reduced expression of the DUX4 gene in muscle cells derived from patients with FSHD. The aberrant expression of the DUX4 gene is the known root cause of FSHD. There are no approved therapies for FSHD, one of the most common forms of muscular dystrophy, with an estimated patient population of 16,000 to 38,000 in the United States and 300,000 to 780,000 globally. Losmapimod has received orphan drug designation from both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, for the treatment of FSHD, and in May 2021, received fast track designation from the FDA.
Following our discovery of the role of p38α/ß inhibitors in the reduction of DUX4 expression in preclinical models of FSHD, we performed an extensive review of known compounds. As a result of our evaluation, we identified losmapimod as the preferred developmental candidate based on the substantial and attractive preclinical and clinical data. We in-licensed losmapimod from affiliates of GlaxoSmithKline plc, or GSK, in February 2019. GSK had previously administered losmapimod to nearly 3,500 subjects across multiple clinical trials, including one Phase 3 clinical trial, and losmapimod was generally well-tolerated across these studies. GSK did not conduct a clinical trial of losmapimod in patients with FSHD or any other muscle disorder. We conducted extensive preclinical testing of losmapimod in patient-derived, tissue-relevant cell models and observed that losmapimod selectively reduced DUX4 -driven gene expression and restored a healthy gene expression signature with minimal impact on healthy human muscle cells or other cell types.
We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international Phase 2b clinical trial, referred to as ReDUX4, to evaluate losmapimod in 80 patients with FSHD. In this Phase 2b clinical trial, the primary endpoint was change in DUX4 -driven gene expression, an experimental molecular biomarker. Secondary endpoints included evaluation of safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics, or PK, in blood, as well as measures of muscle health, structure and function, including muscle fat infiltration, or MFI, reachable workspace, or RWS, and patient-reported outcomes. Concurrently, we initiated a single-center open label Phase 2 clinical trial to investigate the safety and tolerability of chronic treatment with losmapimod in patients with FSHD. In the ongoing extension of the open label trial, we are also evaluating measures of muscle function, muscle strength, and patient reported quality of life.
We presented the full data from the ReDUX4 trial in June 2021. While the primary endpoint was not met, results demonstrated clinically relevant benefits versus placebo on multiple measures of muscle health and function as well as
1
patient reported outcomes at 48 weeks. Losmapimod-treated participants showed decreased progression of MFI as measured in intermediate muscles, which are muscles already affected by disease and most likely to show signs of disease progression. Normal appearing muscles appeared to be preserved in the losmapimod group versus placebo. Treatment with losmapimod was shown to slow the rate of decline and improve accessible surface area in RWS, which is a measure of function that assesses upper extremity range of motion and has been shown to be an important measure of independence. Additionally, patients reported feeling better when treated with losmapimod compared to placebo through the Patient Global Impression of Change, or PGIC, assessment. PGIC is a measure of self-reported change in how a patient feels and functions. Losmapimod was generally well-tolerated, with no drug-related serious adverse events reported.
Based on the ReDUX4 data , we engaged with external experts,U.S. and EU regulatory agencies, including FDA, and gained alignment on key aspects of the design of a Phase 3 trial. We expect to initiate our Phase 3 trial, REACH, in the second quarter of 2022. REACH will be a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-national trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD. The trial is expected to enroll approximately 230 adults with FSHD. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive either losmapimod, administered orally as a 15 mg tablet twice a day, or placebo, and evaluated over a 48-week treatment period. The primary endpoint of the study is the absolute change from baseline in RWS. Secondary endpoints include MFI, PGIC, and Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders of the upper extremity, or Neuro QoL UE. The trial will also include patient-centered assessments of healthcare utilization.
Our other product candidate, FTX-6058, is an investigational oral fetal hemoglobin, or HbF, inducer that is in development for SCD and select other hemoglobinopathies, including ß-thalassemia. FTX-6058 is designed to bind to embryonic ectoderm development, or EED, and inhibit the transcriptional silencing activity of the polycomb repressive complex 2, or PRC2. By doing so, preclinical studies have shown that FTX-6058 downregulates key HbF repressors, including BCL11A and MYB, and upregulates HbF.
SCD is a genetic blood disorder caused by a mutation in the ß-subunit gene, or HBB gene. This mutation results in the formation of abnormal hemoglobin, or HbS, which causes red blood cells, or RBCs, to change from a round shape into a sickle shape that significantly impairs their function. ß-thalassemia is a rare blood disorder caused by various genetic mutations in the HBB gene that can significantly impair the production of hemoglobin and RBCs. We designed FTX-6058 to compensate for the root cause of these hemoglobinopathies by inducing the expression of the two γ-globin genes, HBG1/2 , whose expression is normally silenced shortly after birth. The HBG1/2 genes encode for γ-globin, a component of HbF, which is known to repair the abnormal RBC shape in SCD and to compensate for the presence of HbS in SCD and ß-thalassemia. We have observed in vitro and in vivo activation of the HBG1/2 genes in preclinical studies with FTX-6058. We have also observed that FTX-6058 demonstrated robust levels of HbF elevation with no adverse effects on important cellular health markers. We conducted additional pre-clinical profiling in CD34+ derived cells and observed that treatment with FTX-6058 increased HbF levels to approximately 30% of total hemoglobin, as measured by mass spectrometry, high performance liquid chromatography, and fast protein liquid chromatography techniques. The elevation of HbF was significantly greater than we observed with hydroxyurea in the cell models.
In the fourth quarter of 2020, we initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of FTX-6058 in healthy adult volunteers. The Phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and PK of ascending doses of FTX-6058. In the single-ascending dose, or SAD, cohorts, healthy volunteers received one dose of either placebo or 2, 4, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 60mg of FTX-6058. In the multiple-ascending dose, or MAD, cohorts, healthy volunteers received a once-daily dose of placebo or 2, 6, 10, 20 or 30mg of FTX-6058 for 14 consecutive days. Each MAD cohort had six subjects on drug and two on placebo. Food effect was also studied in a separate 20mg dose cohort. Exploratory measures were included in the MAD cohorts to assess target engagement, changes in HBG mRNA and HbF-containing reticulocytes, or F-reticulocytes. A 6mg dose cohort in people with SCD was later added to this trial to further inform PK and pharmacodynamic, or PD, modeling for future dose selections.
We reported data from the 2, 4, 10, 20, 30 and 40mg SAD cohorts and the 2, 6 and 10 mg MAD cohorts in healthy volunteers in August 2021, and we reported data from the 60 mg SAD cohort and the 20 and 30 mg MAD cohorts in healthy volunteers, as well as data from the 20 mg cohort assessing food effect in December 2021.
FTX-6058 was generally well-tolerated with no serious adverse events reported and no discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, across all SAD and MAD cohorts. Data continued to show dose-proportional PK, with a mean half-life of approximately 6-7 hours in the MAD cohorts, supporting once-daily dosing, and no food effect was observed with FTX-6058. Data from the MAD cohorts continued to show robust target engagement, as evidenced by an approximately 75-95% reduction from baseline in H3K27me3 after 14 days of treatment.
2
Data from the MAD cohorts also showed time- and dose-dependent HBG mRNA induction, as shown in the chart below, demonstrating proof-of-biology. Persistent HBG mRNA induction was observed for 7-10 days after treatment. In preclinical studies of FTX-6058, increases in HBG mRNA have consistently translated to the same fold increases in HbF protein. Notably, human genetics show that 2-3-fold increases in HbF above typical baseline levels in SCD are associated with significantly improved outcomes, and even functional cures, in people with SCD. FTX-6058 has now demonstrated dose-proportional greater than mean 2-fold induction in HBG mRNA, the key precursor to HbF protein, starting with the 6mg dose.
HBG mRNA Mean Fold Induction for FTX-6058 versus Placebo
2mg*
6mg*
10mg*
20 mg
30mg
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Day 7
1.28
0.3494
1.94
0.0135
2.08
0.0063
2.06
0.0072
2.29
0.0025
Day 14
1.20
0.5122
2.45
0.0025
3.54
<0.0001
5.63
<0.0001
6.15
<0.0001
Safety Follow-up (Day 21-24)
1.21
0.3736
2.75
<0.0001
3.22
<0.0001
6.45
<0.0001
6.13
<0.0001
As shown in the chart below, HbF containing F-cells, or F-reticulocytes, also increased starting at day 14 and continued to increase at the safety follow-up visit, which was seven to 10 days after conclusion of dosing. Notably, increases in F-reticulocytes of any magnitude are a first indicator that HBG mRNA is translating to HbF protein production but fold changes in F-reticulocytes are not correlated with fold changes in HbF.
F-Reticulocyte Mean Fold Increase for FTX-6058 versus Placebo
2mg*
6mg*
10mg*
20 mg
30mg
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Day 7
0.53
0.1070
1.02
0.9524
0.83
0.6214
0.71
0.3831
1.50
0.2928
Day 14
0.88
0.6881
1.25
0.4895
2.23
0.0180
1.00
0.9880
1.71
0.1049
Safety Follow-up (Day 21-24)
0.63
0.2167
1.65
0.0943
3.93
<0.0001
1.79
0.0591
2.38
0.0059
* Fold changes from these cohorts were updated to reflect the fold-increase over pooled placebo data across all cohorts from 2-30mg versus previously reported fold changes over pooled placebo data across 2-10mg cohorts.
We initiated a Phase 1b clinical trial of FTX-6058 in people with SCD in the fourth quarter of 2021, with the aim of establishing early proof of concept in SCD. The open label trial is designed to assess safety, tolerability, PK and PD effects, including HbF protein induction of up to three doses, starting with 6mg once daily dose, to inform dose selection for future development. Each dose cohort will have up to 10 patients who will be treated for up to three months. We expect to report initial data, including HbF protein levels, from the trial in the second quarter of 2022.
According to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, there are approximately 7,000 rare, genetically defined human diseases, many of which have inadequate or no approved treatments. Our current drug target identification and development efforts are focused on rare muscular, hematologic and neurologic, disorders. We also anticipate utilizing FulcrumSeek to discover drug targets for genetically defined diseases in other therapeutic areas and for other disorders. In addition to drug targets that we prioritize for internal development, we may identify other drug targets that we would consider for development through partnerships. For example, we are utilizing FulcrumSeek to discover drug targets within a targeted indication within the pulmonary disease space under our collaboration and license agreement with Acceleron, a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck, and for the potential treatment of certain genetically defined cardiomyopathies under our collaboration and license agreement with MyoKardia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
3
Our Pipeline
Using FulcrumSeek, we have generated a pipeline of disease-modifying therapies that address the known root cause of rare genetic diseases. The following chart summarizes key information about our pipeline.
Our Strategy
We are leveraging the broad applicability of our proprietary product engine to discover and develop small molecule therapies that modulate gene expression to address the known root cause of genetically defined rare diseases in areas of high unmet medical need. We believe that our initial product candidates for the treatment of FSHD, SCD and ß-thalassemia may have the potential to treat patients with these debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening illnesses. The key components of our strategy include:
• Rapidly develop losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD. We aim to rapidly develop losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD through clinical development and regulatory approval. In the second quarter of 2022, we plan to initiate a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 48-week Phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD.
• Rapidly develop FTX-6058 for the treatment of select hemoglobinopathies. We have initiated a Phase 1b clinical trial of FTX-6058 in people with SCD and expect to report initial data from the trial in the second quarter of 2022. We submitted an IND to the FDA in the fourth quarter of 2021 for FTX-6058 in other select hemoglobinopathies, including ß-thalassemia, and expect to initiate a Phase 1b study in the second quarter of 2022.
• Continue to apply FulcrumSeek to grow our portfolio of product candidates for the treatment of genetically defined diseases. We have developed a rigorous assessment and selection process to determine which of the approximately 7,000 rare, genetically defined diseases we intend to evaluate in drug target identification activities. We are applying FulcrumSeek to discover drug targets to modulate gene expression and develop product candidates for the potential treatment of the root cause of disease.
• Further expand our product engine capabilities. We have significantly enhanced the scale and power of FulcrumSeek to increase the pace of discovery and we intend to further expand our capabilities to enhance the therapeutic reach and productivity of our drug discovery process. We expect to name our next development candidate in 2022 to support our fourth IND by the end of the first quarter of 2023.
4
• Maximize the commercial potential of our product candidates. We have retained all rights to our lead product candidates focused on rare genetically defined diseases, and plan to commercialize any approved product for such rare genetically defined diseases using a targeted sales infrastructure. We may in the future pursue commercialization partnerships for certain product candidates and/or markets outside the United States.
• Selectively enter into strategic partnerships to maximize the value of our product engine and pipeline. Given the breadth of opportunities for our proprietary product engine to discover drug targets and develop product candidates for genetically defined diseases, we may enter into strategic partnerships for certain drug targets, product candidates or disease areas, such as our collaboration and license agreements with Acceleron, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck, and MyoKardia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb. Partnerships may provide an attractive avenue for expanding the impact of our proprietary product engine
Gene Regulation
The human genome provides the blueprint, or genetic code, for life. The sequencing of the human genome has enabled significant insights into understanding the genetic underpinnings of many diseases. Genes are the fundamental units of biology, but the gene itself is rather static. The identity and function of each cell is determined by a specific set of factors that activate or repress mechanisms that regulate genes in the desired manner. There are many mechanisms that control the human genome by up or down regulating gene expression, and these regulatory mechanisms are controlled by various pathways and signals. Defects in a gene or any of these regulatory mechanisms can result in misexpression, aberrant expression or silencing of a gene that may lead to or is closely associated with disease.
The graphic below illustrates the key steps in the gene expression process in cells and how they are under the control of a variety of regulatory signals and pathways.
5
Our Opportunity
We have the ability to develop, scale and characterize complex cellular models of human disorders of gene misexpression and mis-regulation. Our current drug target identification and development efforts are focused on rare muscular, hematologic and neurologic disorders. We also anticipate utilizing FulcrumSeek to discover drug targets for genetically defined diseases in other therapeutic areas. Our target identification and validation process provides a systematic way to approach the identification of unique drug targets that, when activated or inhibited, may increase or decrease gene expression in genetically defined diseases with the aim of restoring a healthy or functional phenotype. Our product engine is designed to be agnostic to cell type, pathway and therapeutic modality. While our drug target selection process is guided by our strategy to advance small molecule therapeutics that treat the root cause of disease into clinical development, we also may identify drug targets that might be addressable by other treatment modalities, such as antisense oligonucleotides, or ASOs, small interfering RNAs, or siRNAs, or antibodies.
We are continuing to expand our proprietary library of highly annotated small molecules to facilitate the process by which we assess diseases and generate drug target hypotheses through our computational biology expertise. We screen our proprietary small molecule library and customized CRISPR or RNAi libraries in patient-derived tissue and disease-relevant cell models, such as skeletal muscle cells, cardiac muscle cells, brain cells and blood cells. FulcrumSeek is designed to provide a unique understanding into gene regulatory and signaling pathways that may be relevant for the activation or repression of a particular gene associated with the disease of interest. To achieve this, we profile many features that are impacted when a cell of interest is treated with a perturbagen, such as a small molecule probe, CRISPR guide, siRNA, or microRNAs. These features include a comprehensive assessment of transcripts that are modulated (quantified by RNA sequencing, or RNAseq) and cellular processes that are measured by imaging techniques. We expect that the data from these screens will allow us to develop a broader understanding of biology that may be relevant in disease. With the completion of each additional screening, FulcrumSeek increases in size, and our insights and knowledge are further expanded. Moreover, with the initiation of our collaborations with Acceleron and MyoKardia, we are further demonstrating the scope of our disease modeling and target identification capabilities with the expansion into pulmonary and cardiovascular disease.
According to the NIH there are approximately 7,000 rare, genetically defined human diseases, many of which have inadequate or no approved treatments. We believe that our approach to selecting and modeling certain of these human diseases with patient-derived tissue-relevant cells, followed by screening with our proprietary small molecule library and customized CRISPR or RNAi libraries, could be broadly applied to the identification of drug targets that have the potential to balance the expression of many genes known to drive or ameliorate disease.
Our Approach
The ability to intervene in gene regulatory pathways that control gene expression provides the basis of FulcrumSeek. Our approach is to broadly search for mechanisms that can change gene expression in the desired manner. These drug targets may be intracellular targets or extracellular targets that affect a signaling pathway. Key considerations we use to determine which genetically defined diseases are suitable to evaluate in drug target identification activities include:
• Unmet medical need and market opportunity : we consider the severity of disease, the number of patients who could be treated and the competitive landscape.
• Clear mechanistic link between a root cause genetic defect and disease : we evaluate whether there is genetic validation of the gene’s role in disease and the effect of gene modulation on disease.
• Drug discovery execution : we consider whether relevant patient-derived, tissue-specific cell models and assays are available or whether we can develop such models using our expertise.
• Clinical feasibility : we evaluate potential biomarker and clinical endpoints, whether there is a meaningful treatment window and whether there is an accessible patient population to undertake clinical trials in a reasonable time frame.
FulcrumSeek is designed to enable us to address diseases in which genes are mis-expressed, silenced or result in mutated gene products, such as RNA or protein, due to an underlying genetic defect. There are varied approaches to treating disease by balancing gene expression including reducing the expression of a gene that causes disease ( e.g., DUX4 in FSHD), increasing the expression of an under-expressed gene or expressing a compensatory gene ( e.g., HBG1/2 in SCD and ß-thalassemia). Our preclinical modeling of the relevant tissue is critical for success, and we believe this is best achieved using human cell systems derived from patients with the disease. We primarily seek to identify drug targets that may balance gene expression in these human cell systems and that are amenable to drugging using a small molecule. In addition to drug targets that we prioritize for internal development, we may identify other drug targets that we would consider for development through partnerships.
6
Our Lead Product Candidates
We have used our proprietary product engine and screening efforts to identify drug targets for our lead product candidates. The following chart summarizes key information about our lead product candidates.
Our Product Candidate for FSHD - Losmapimod
Overview of Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy
Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy is a rare, progressive and disabling disease for which there are no approved treatments. FSHD is one of the most common forms of muscular dystrophy and affects both sexes equally, with onset typically in teens and young adults. FSHD is characterized by progressive skeletal muscle loss that initially causes weakness in muscles in the face, shoulders, arms and trunk and progresses to weakness in muscles in lower extremities and the pelvic girdle. Skeletal muscle weakness results in significant physical limitations, including progressive loss of independence, including impacts to facial muscles that can cause problems with communication, difficulty using arms for activities of daily living and difficulty getting out of bed, with many patients ultimately becoming dependent upon the use of a wheelchair for daily mobility activities. The majority of patients with FSHD also report experiencing chronic pain, anxiety and depression. The diagnosis and treatment of patients with FSHD is typically performed by neurologists.
7
The FSH Society estimated that the prevalence of FSHD in the United States is approximately 1 in 20,000 people. A recent study conducted in the Netherlands reported a more frequent prevalence of 1 in 8,333. Based on these estimates and a U.S. population of 320 million, we estimate that the patient population is between 16,000 to 38,000 in the United States. We believe that there may be additional patients who are not formally diagnosed due to a perceived difficulty of obtaining a diagnosis and the fact that there are no approved treatments. Approximately two-thirds of cases are familial-inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion and one-third of cases are sporadic. FSHD affects all ethnic groups with similar incidence and prevalence.
FSHD Biology
FSHD is caused by aberrant expression of DUX4 in skeletal muscle resulting in the inappropriate presence of DUX4 protein, a transcription factor causing the expression of other genes. Normally DUX4-driven gene expression is limited to early embryonic development, after which time the DUX4 gene is silenced. In patients with FSHD, aberrant production of DUX4 protein in skeletal muscle regulates other genes encoding proteins, some of which are toxic to the muscle. The result of aberrant DUX4 expression in FSHD is death of muscle and its replacement by fat, resulting in skeletal muscle weakness and progressive disability. We believe that reducing expression of the DUX4 gene and its downstream transcriptional program could provide a disease-modifying therapeutic approach for the treatment of FSHD at its root cause. Published preclinical and human data, in addition to in vitro experiments that we have conducted, suggest that any reduction in DUX4 expression may be beneficial for patients. In preclinical studies, we have demonstrated that there is a direct relationship between muscle cell death (apoptosis) and the level of DUX4 expression, and a reduction in DUX4 leads to a concomitant decrease in apoptosis. As illustrated in the graphic below, in animal models where expression of DUX4 in skeletal muscle is induced, a corresponding loss of function is observed with increasing levels of DUX4 expression. In these animal models where low levels of DUX4 are expressed, the animals performed similarly to healthy animals in a mobility assessment, suggesting that complete DUX4 reduction is not required for a functional benefit. Data from human muscle biopsies likewise indicated that increased DUX4 activity is related to worsening muscle pathology.
In all patients with FSHD, the DUX4 gene is unsilenced, or de-repressed, as a result of one of two different types of genetic alterations, leading to FSHD1 or FSHD2. Approximately 95% of patients have FSHD1 and approximately 5% of patients have FSHD2. FSHD1 is caused by the contraction of an array of DNA, known as a D4Z4 repeat, from greater than ten repeat units to nine or fewer units. This contraction causes de-repression of DUX4 . Patients with FSHD2 do not have meaningful D4Z4 repeat contraction, but have mutations in a regulatory gene, known as the SMCHD1 gene, that normally contributes to the repression of the DUX4 gene via DNA methylation.
FulcrumSeek Identified the Drug Target for FSHD
We utilized patient-derived FSHD1 muscle cells, known as myotubes, and screened them with our small molecule probe library to identify drug targets that reduced DUX4 expression. We identified several potential drug targets, however the modulation of the majority of the targets adversely affected the health or differentiation of muscle cells. One drug target that we identified from our screening efforts for which we did not observe adverse cell health issues was p38α/ß, which had been studied extensively in other diseases, but had not been reported to be linked to DUX4 expression or FSHD until we conducted our screening efforts. We evaluated multiple small molecule p38α/ß inhibitors and observed a consistent reduction of both DUX4 expression and DUX4-driven gene transcripts with each p38α/ß inhibitor. We conducted further validation experiments to confirm that inhibition of p38α using genetic approaches such as siRNA and CRISPR single-guide RNAs, also led to a reduction in DUX4 expression. Additionally, researchers from Saint Louis University independently published
8
the results of a study which concluded that inhibitors of p38α/ß, including losmapimod, suppressed DUX4 expression in cellular and animal FSHD models.
Losmapimod Overview
After identifying p38α/ß as a potential drug target, we evaluated multiple small molecule inhibitors of p38α/ß. Each of these inhibitors had previously been evaluated in clinical trials for the treatment of various diseases but never in muscle disorders. As a result of our evaluation and relative to other p38α/ß inhibitors, we identified losmapimod as the preferred development candidate based on substantial and attractive preclinical and clinical data regarding safety, PK and target inhibition, and its advanced stage of development. Losmapimod was originally evaluated by GSK in nearly 3,500 subjects in clinical trials across multiple indications and in multiple countries. GSK did not evaluate losmapimod in FSHD or in any other muscle disorder. Although GSK did not pursue regulatory approval in the indications evaluated, losmapimod demonstrated an attractive PK, PD, safety and tolerability profile, including in chronic dosing. Additionally, we observed in preclinical studies using losmapimod that inhibition of the p38α/ß pathway reduced DUX4 expression and downstream gene expression. After identifying losmapimod, we in-licensed the molecule from GSK because we believed that its safety and pharmacology history would significantly expedite our development plan and enhance our future regulatory submissions.
In June 2021, we reported full data from the randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter international Phase 2b clinical trial, or ReDUX4. Although the primary endpoint was not met, we demonstrated slowing of disease progression and improved function in FSHD patients treated with losmapimod compared to placebo. In the second quarter of 2022, we expect to initiate a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 48-week Phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD.
In January 2020, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD. In March 2020, the EMA granted orphan drug designation to losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD. In May 2021, the FDA granted fast track designation to losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD.
Clinical Trial: Phase 2b (ReDUX4)
In June 2021, at the FSHD International Research Congress, we presented full data from our randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter international Phase 2b clinical trial, the ReDUX4 trial, in 80 patients with FSHD1 and clinical severity scores of two to four on the Ricci scale. In this trial, we evaluated treatment with 15 mg of losmapimod or placebo tablets twice per day over a 24 or 48-week period. Enrollment was completed in February 2020. Patients were randomized 1:1 between the treatment and placebo arms. The FDA accepted the IND for losmapimod in June 2019, and we also submitted CTAs at various dates during 2019 to conduct the trial at sites in Europe and Canada, all of which were accepted. We presented data from a pre-specified interim analysis in August 2020. We completed the ReDUX4 trial in January 2021 and presented full data from the trial at the FSHD International Research Congress on June 24, 2021.
The primary endpoint was the change in DUX4 -driven gene expression in affected skeletal muscle at 16 or 36 weeks, which was included as an experimental biomarker. The trial was also designed to capture a wide range of data relating to FSHD progression in addition to safety, target engagement and PK data. The secondary endpoints were evaluation of safety and tolerability in FSHD patients, PK in blood, losmapimod concentration in skeletal muscle biopsies, target engagement in blood and in muscle biopsies, and efficacy based on the whole-body skeletal muscle MRI biomarker. The whole-body MRI scans evaluated changes in MFI , muscle fat fraction and lean muscle volume. The muscles evaluated in the trial were classified as normal appearing (not affected by disease), intermediate (clearly affected by disease but not so severely fat replaced to have lost all function) or end stage (severely fat replaced and have lost most if not all function). The exploratory endpoints included RWS, timed up and go, or TUG test, an optimized timed up and go test for FSHD, or FSHD TUG, muscle strength measured by hand-held dynamometry, other muscle function measures and patient reported outcomes.
The original design of ReDUX4 included a muscle biopsy at week 16 during the 24-week treatment period followed by an open label extension. Sixteen of the 80 subjects in trial completed the 24-week treatment period and rolled over to the open label extension portion of the trial. As a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we extended the ReDUX4 treatment period from 24 to 48 weeks through a protocol amendment to ensure the safety of the subjects and to allow for the opportunity for a biopsy at week 16 as originally intended or at week 36. Approximately 64 subjects who did not complete the original 24-week treatment period continued in the 48-week treatment period in the randomized portion of the trial. The extension from 24 to 48 weeks also allowed for a longer assessment in a placebo-controlled design of the skeletal muscle MRI secondary endpoint and the various exploratory clinical endpoints, such as RWS, optimized FSHD TUG test, muscle function measures and patient reported outcomes.
In August 2020, we announced results from a pre-specified interim analysis of the primary endpoint of the ReDUX4 trial, which is the reduction from baseline of DUX4 -driven gene expression in affected skeletal muscle after subjects have
9
been treated with losmapimod or placebo. Secondary and exploratory endpoints were not assessed as part of this analysis. Results from the interim analysis in the first 29 randomized subjects indicate that DUX4 -driven gene expression did not show a separation from placebo at 16 weeks. However, in a pre-specified sensitivity analysis, those with the highest pre-treatment DUX4 -driven gene expression in their muscle biopsy sample showed a large reduction in DUX4 -driven gene expression following treatment with losmapimod compared to placebo. The highest expressing muscle biopsies represent the top quartile of biopsies assessed based on baseline DUX4 -driven gene expression.
The interim results included an analysis of the first 29 subjects who completed their 16-week biopsy. PK, demographics and the primary endpoint were assessed. The interim analysis was not powered for statistical significance and did not include individual patient level data. Subjects were randomized to receive an oral dose of losmapimod 15mg (n=15) or placebo (n=14) twice per day. While results showed a significant reduction in DUX4 -driven gene expression in the muscle biopsies of subjects whose baseline biopsy showed the highest levels of DUX4 gene expression (38-fold decrease with losmapimod, n=3, and 5.4 fold-decrease with placebo, n=5), the population level data analysis of the reduction in DUX4 -driven gene expression from all 29 subjects did not show a separation of losmapimod from placebo (3.7 fold increase with losmapimod, n=15, and 2.8 fold increase with placebo, n=14). Results suggested that muscle biopsies within the higher range of DUX4 -driven gene expression at baseline may be needed to observe a reduction.
In June 2021, we reported full results from ReDUX4. The trial did not meet the primary endpoint, change from baseline in DUX4 -driven gene expression in affected skeletal muscle at Week 16 or Week 36. Secondary and exploratory endpoints showed clinically relevant and nominally statistically significant benefits in the losmapimod treated group versus placebo on multiple measures of structural and functional FSHD progression and patient reported outcomes at 48 weeks. As the primary endpoint was not met, all comparative analyses are reported with nominal statistical p-values.
• Losmapimod-treated participants showed decreased progression in the treatment efficacy composite measure of MFI as measured in intermediate muscles, those most likely to change (p=0.01). Normal appearing muscles appeared to be preserved in the losmapimod group versus placebo based on a post hoc analysis. MFI is a measure of diffuse fatty infiltration in lean muscle tissue that is correlated with disease severity in FSHD.
• Treatment with losmapimod was shown to slow the rate of decline and improve accessible surface area in RWS measures (p<0.05). RWS is a measure of function that assesses upper extremity range of motion. Prior studies have shown that RWS correlates with changes in the ability of patients to independently perform activities of daily living. Based on published results, RWS is an important measure of independence. The disease tends to progress from the upper body down, and loss of shoulder movement leads to loss of mobility. Participants in the losmapimod group showed improvements of up to 1.5 points from baseline in the accessible surface area when using a 500g weight on their wrist compared to placebo. Participants in the placebo group were able to access 2 to 4 points less total surface area (with and without 500g weights) measured by RWS after 48 weeks. The net difference between the groups at 48 weeks was 3.5 to 5 points, which in some patients is the difference between functional independence and dependence.
• Participants reported feeling better when treated with losmapimod compared to placebo through the PGIC assessment (p=0.02). PGIC, a measure of self-reported change in how a patient feels and functions, showed that participants were able to recognize improvements after 48 weeks of treatment. More participants in the losmapimod group reported improvement at 48 weeks compared to placebo. Four times more losmapimod participants reported improvement over time as compared to participants treated with placebo. Importantly, fewer losmapimod participants reported worsening as compared to placebo, and no losmapimod participants reported being “much worse” as compared to more than 13% of placebo participants, who reported that their disease had become “much worse.”
Additional secondary and exploratory endpoints measuring disease progression and function demonstrated differences between losmapimod and placebo at week 48. In a post hoc analysis, dynamometry, which measures muscle strength, demonstrated that participants in the losmapimod group showed non-statistically significant trends of slower progression, as well as meaningful improvements (12-27%) in the strength of bilateral shoulder abductors and ankle dorsiflexors, two muscle groups particularly affected in FSHD, compared to placebo. Functional scales including RWS and TUG showed improvements in limb function consistent with dynamometry results. Two recently designed scales (FSHD TUG, and FSHD Health Index), did not demonstrate changes from baseline in either group or differences between losmapimod and placebo groups, suggesting that these tests are not sensitive to change over the 48-week time period. Motor function measure also showed no changes in either group or differences between the groups over 48 weeks. There was no difference in muscle fat fraction or lean muscle volume between losmapimod and placebo groups at 48 weeks in intermediate muscles.
Safety and tolerability data were consistent with previously reported results with no drug-related SAEs reported. Losmapimod was generally well-tolerated and the majority of TEAEs were deemed unlikely related or not related to study drug by the investigator. There were three SAEs (post-op wound infection, alcohol poisoning and a suicide attempt) reported in two participants in the losmapimod group, each assessed as unrelated to losmapimod. There were no deaths or
10
discontinuations due to adverse events. Losmapimod has now been evaluated in over 3,600 subjects in clinical trials across multiple indications, including FSHD.
REACH, a Phase 3 Registrational Trial
We plan to initiate REACH, a Phase 3 trial of losmapimod in FSHD, in the second quarter of 2022. Based on data from the ReDUX4 Phase 2b study, we engaged with U.S. and EU regulatory agencies, including the FDA, and gained alignment on key aspects of the design of a Phase 3 trial intended to support a full registration approval. REACH will be a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-national trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD. The trial is expected to enroll approximately 230 adults with FSHD. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive either losmapimod, administered orally as a 15 mg tablet twice a day, or placebo, and evaluated over a 48-week treatment period. The primary endpoint of the study is the absolute change from baseline in RWS. Secondary endpoints include MFI, PGIC, and Neuro QoL UE. The trial will also include patient-centered assessments of healthcare utilization.
Clinical Trial: ReDUX4 Open Label Extension
In February 2020 we initiated an open label extension of the ReDUX4 trial to enable patients who have completed the 24-week or 48-week treatment period with losmapimod or placebo in ReDUX4 to receive long term treatment with losmapimod. This open label extension includes clinical assessments of safety and efficacy every three months, whole-body musculoskeletal MRI every six months, and a muscle needle biopsy once after six months of treatment. We anticipate that this trial will continue until such time as the drug is approved and available in the commercial setting or the clinical development of losmapimod in FSHD is terminated.
Clinical Trial: Phase 2 Open Label Study Trial
In parallel with the ReDUX4 Phase 2b clinical trial, we also initiated in August 2019 an open label, single center Phase 2 clinical trial of losmapimod in up to 16 patients with FSHD and clinical severity scores of two to four on the Ricci scale. In the first part of the trial, patients receive tablets containing 15 mg of losmapimod twice per day for up to 52 weeks. The treatment period is preceded by eight weeks of pre-treatment assessments to establish a baseline for musculoskeletal MRI biomarkers and clinical outcome assessments. We also performed an outpatient mobility assessment using wearable sensors. We are conducting the trial at a single center in the Netherlands. After the 52-week treatment period, participants had the option to elect to continue in an extension of the study, which is ongoing.
The primary objective is to investigate the safety and tolerability of losmapimod for chronic dosing in FSHD patients. The primary endpoints are to assess safety and tolerability over the 52-week period. The secondary endpoints are the change from baseline in pHSP27 and the ratio of pHSP27 to total HSP27 in blood and muscle for assessment of the inhibition of p38α/ß during the dosing period. This trial is also designed to provide initial data regarding changes in DUX4 -driven gene expression, MRI biomarkers, objective clinical outcome assessments and patient-reported outcomes that may occur at various times following initiation of treatment with losmapimod relative to the pre-treatment period. We intend to use this data to further guide our clinical development strategy for losmapimod in FSHD.
In the 52-week treatment period, we measured DUX4 -driven gene expression before and during treatment using muscle needle biopsies in affected muscles. All patients had a pre-treatment biopsy and we will obtain a second muscle needle biopsy from each patient after four or eight weeks of treatment. The original trial design included an additional biopsy during chronic treatment at week 48, but we have removed this assessment from the trial protocol because the open label extension of ReDUX4 includes a biopsy during chronic treatment.
We measure potential losmapimod treatment effects on shoulder and upper arm function and mobility/ambulation, as well as on muscle strength and function and quality of life and activities of daily living, similar to the assessments in the Phase 2b clinical trial. The clinical outcome assessments are RWS, FSHD-TUG, muscle strength, motor function ability and generic and FSHD-specific patient reports of quality of life and activities of daily living. Other exploratory assessments
11
include the six minute walk test, spirometry, and muscle ultrasound. There is also an assessment of day-to-day mobility using wearable sensors.
ReSOLVE Natural History Study
The Clinical Trial Readiness to Solve Barriers to Drug Development in FSHD, or ReSOLVE study, is an ongoing natural history study funded by the NIH to help identify the patient population, efficacy biomarker and clinical outcome assessments for future FSHD drug trials. The study is being coordinated by the University of Rochester and University of Kansas Medical Center and enrolled the first subject in April 2018. The study will follow up to 160 subjects for 24 months across a network of eight U.S. clinical centers and will evaluate multiple biomarkers and clinical outcome assessments that may be suitable for clinical trials and will evaluate patient selection criteria based on genetic, demographic or clinical characteristics. Three sites in the European Union have joined the ReSOLVE protocol and will follow 60 subjects for 24 months. We believe that the results of this natural history study will inform the design and implementation of clinical trials and will inform discussions with regulatory agencies. We also believe that this study may provide valuable insights into the timeline for disease progression and functional changes in FSHD in the absence of treatment.
In connection with the ReSOLVE study, we have funded the addition of a clinical outcome assessment, which we refer to as RWS. RWS is a measure of function that assesses upper extremity range of motion. Specifically, it evaluates total shoulder and proximal arm mobility by utilizing 3D motion sensor technology. Preserving function, as assessed by RWS, is critical for maintaining abilities for self-care and other activities of daily living that directly influence quality of life. Based on published results, RWS is an important measure of independence. The RWS assessments are analyzed by a central reader. We have provided standardized hardware, software, and testing conditions to evaluate RWS at eight sites that are part of the ReSOLVE study in the United States and at three European sites. Furthermore, the RWS assessment has been registered as a medical device in the United States, Canada and Europe.
A recent third-party study assessed changes in RWS for 18 subjects with FSHD for up to five years. As illustrated in the figure below, the study concluded that the RWS measure is able to detect slow declines in upper extremity function in subjects with FSHD as early as 1 year. The study also found that the most notable declines in RWS were in above-the-shoulder level quadrants with no significant changes in lower quadrants and that RWS declined more significantly if the subjects wore 500-gram weights on their wrists.
The figure above illustrates RWS in four quadrants. The optimized RWS includes an additional domain for the lower back, as illustrated in the figure below.
12
Clinical Trial: Phase 1
We conducted a randomized Phase 1 clinical trial of losmapimod in healthy adult volunteers and patients with FSHD in Europe under a CTA that we filed in December 2018. The primary objective of the trial was to investigate the safety and tolerability of losmapimod in healthy volunteers and in FSHD patients. The secondary objective was to evaluate repeated dose PK, and target engagement in FSHD patients in blood and muscle. This trial completed dosing in September 2019 and we presented unblinded data in March 2020.
In the first cohort, 10 healthy volunteers were randomized to a single oral dose of 7.5 mg of losmapimod (n=8) followed by a single oral dose of 15 mg after a wash out period or to single oral dose placebo (n=2) in both dosing periods. In the second cohort, 15 FSHD patients were randomized and treated with placebo (n=3) or 7.5 mg of losmapimod (n=6) or 15 mg of losmapimod (n=6) taken orally twice daily for 14 days. The third cohort was open label with five FSHD patients treated with 15 mg of losmapimod twice daily for 14 days. Biopsies of normal appearing (second cohort) and actively involved (STIR+) muscle (third cohort) were performed at baseline and during treatment.
Losmapimod was well tolerated with no serious adverse events reported. Similar tolerability, safety and PK were observed in healthy volunteers and patients with FSHD. Treatment with losmapimod demonstrated dose-dependent PK and target engagement in blood. FSHD patients treated with losmapimod also achieved dose-dependent concentrations in skeletal muscle, with a muscle to plasma exposure ratio of approximately 1:1. Evidence of dose-dependent target engagement was also observed in skeletal muscle. The losmapimod 15 mg dose taken orally twice daily demonstrated sustained drug concentrations that in preclinical models with human FSHD myotubes resulted in a robust reduction of DUX4 -driven gene expression. These data support the selection of the 15 mg dose of losmapimod taken orally twice daily in our ongoing Phase 2b placebo-controlled clinical trial and Phase 2 open label clinical trial of losmapimod.
We manufactured the losmapimod capsules for this trial prior to our license agreement with GSK. For our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trials, we are using losmapimod tablets that were manufactured by GSK. We confirmed that the PK of the losmapimod capsules were consistent with published data on the PK of the losmapimod tablets manufactured by GSK. We also confirmed that the p38α/ß target engagement in blood from our losmapimod capsules is consistent with the previous data on target engagement of the losmapimod tablets manufactured by GSK.
13
Prior Clinical Development of Losmapimod by GSK
GSK conducted multiple Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials and one Phase 3 clinical trial of losmapimod, including in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, acute coronary syndrome and other cardiovascular diseases, neuropathic pain, major depression disorder, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Nearly 3,500 subjects in 24 trials were given losmapimod with single doses as high as 60 mg and repeated oral doses as high as 15 mg twice per day for up to 52 weeks. We are using a dose of 15 mg twice per day in our clinical trials of losmapimod in FSHD. GSK did not conduct a clinical trial of losmapimod in patients with FSHD or any other muscle disorder.
In clinical trials of losmapimod conducted by GSK, no significant differences were observed in the frequency of adverse events, or AEs, in subjects given losmapimod and subjects given placebo. GSK generally observed a similar frequency of serious adverse events, or SAEs, and deaths between patients given losmapimod and patients given placebo. These trials included extensive evaluation of the cardiovascular risk profile of losmapimod, including completion of an evaluation of the potential to prolong corrected QT. GSK reported that there was no clinically relevant difference with regard to the occurrence of electrocardiogram abnormalities post-baseline or vital signs with losmapimod as compared to placebo. GSK did not identify a safety signal attributed to losmapimod in any of these trials. There were no SAEs reported in 14 of these 24 clinical trials of losmapimod.
The largest placebo-controlled clinical trial of losmapimod conducted by GSK was a Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome following a heart attack, in which over 1,700 patients were given 7.5 mg of losmapimod or placebo twice per day for 12 weeks and were followed for an additional 12 weeks. In this trial, GSK observed a similar proportion of AEs and SAEs in the placebo group as compared to the losmapimod group.
There were also ten SAEs of fatality in the placebo group and 13 SAEs of fatality in the losmapimod group. In the placebo group, the SAEs of fatality were infections and infestations (two), general disorders and administrative site conditions (two), respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (three), cardiac disorder (one), gastrointestinal disorder (one) and neoplasm (one). In the losmapimod group, the SAEs of fatatity were infections and infestations (four), general disorders and administrative site conditions (three), respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (two), cardiac disorder (one), injury poisoning and procedural complications (one), gastrointestinal disorder (one) and neoplasm (one).
Among the total of 14 Phase 1 and Phase2 placebo-controlled clinical trials of losmapimod (N=1327 on losmapimod; N=735 on placebo), the distribution of SAEs was similar among losmapimod-treated and placebo-treated subjects. The most common SAEs were cardiac disorders (2% placebo; 3% losmapimod) and respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (1% placebo; 2% losmapimod). SAEs were reported in 11 of these 14 trials; 3 trials reported no SAEs.
In addition to the 24 trials conducted by GSK, another sponsor conducted a placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial of losmapimod in which 73 subjects with COPD with cardiovascular manifestations were given 7.5 mg of losmapimod or placebo for 16 weeks. There were 36 subjects in the losmapimod group and 37 in the placebo group. In this trial, there were a total of six (17%) SAEs in the losmapimod group, consisting of exacerbations of COPD and pneumonia, and there was one (3%) SAE in the placebo group.
In prior studies, GSK observed that the p38α/ß target inhibition in humans was approximately 10%, 30% and 50% at trough and 40%, 60% and 70% at peak following twice per day doses of 2.5 mg, 7.5 mg and 15 mg, respectively. In addition, based on in vitro data from our studies in FSHD myotubes with losmapimod, we believe that the muscle exposures that we have achieved in rodents, which are similar to concentrations in human blood from the 15 mg twice per day dose, will result in robust p38α/ß target engagement and will reduce DUX4 -driven gene expression in FSHD skeletal muscle by more than 50%. We believe that this data supports our determination that 15 mg of losmapimod twice per day is an appropriate dose for the treatment of patients with FSHD.
Our Product Candidate for Hemoglobinopathies - FTX-6058
Hemoglobinopathies are a category of genetic disorders affecting hemoglobin, a critical component of RBCs. The function of hemoglobin is to delivery oxygen to tissues: hemoglobin picks up oxygen as RBCs circulate through the lungs and then drops off oxygen to the tissues so that they may function normally. Hemoglobinopathies result in either abnormal (mutant) hemoglobin or low levels of hemoglobin, and both of these conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality risks. We are developing FTX-6058, which is designed elevate the level of HbF for the treatment of patients with SCD and select other hemoglobinopathies, including ß-thalassemia.
Overview of Sickle Cell Disease
Sickle cell disease is a genetic disorder of RBCs. The root cause of SCD is a mutant hemoglobin that polymerizes in low oxygen conditions. This polymerization creates the abnormal, elongated, or sickle, shape of the RBC and results in, ultimately, hemolysis and vascular injury that causes major morbidities and significantly limits lifespan in people with SCD.
14
SCD patients typically suffer from serious clinical consequences, which may include vaso-occlusive crises, anemia, pain, infections, stroke, heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, kidney failure, liver disease and reduced life expectancy. According to a study published by the American Medical Association, approximately 32.5% of adult patients with SCD were hospitalized three or more times per year due to pain crises. SCD is reported to shorten patient life expectancy by approximately 20 to 30 years. Patients with SCD are primarily treated by hematologists.
In the United States, where newborn screening for SCD is mandatory, the estimated prevalence is approximately 100,000 individuals. In Europe, the estimated prevalence is approximately 134,000 individuals according to the EMA. According to the World Health Organization, the global incidence is estimated to be approximately 300,000 births annually. SCD is most prevalent in Africa and the Middle East.
Approved drug treatments for SCD focus primarily on the management and reduction of pain episodes, vaso-occlusive crises, and inhibition of hemoglobin S polymerization. The four drug treatments approved in the United States are hydroxyurea, voxelotor, crizanlizumab, and L-glutamine. Hydroxyurea is approved for the treatment of anemia related to SCD to reduce the frequency of painful crises and the need for blood transfusions. Hydroxyurea has a black box warning for myelosuppression and malignancy. In general, it is limited by its adverse side effects, inconsistent patient responses and concerns regarding the cytotoxic effect of the drug. L-glutamine is approved to reduce severe complications associated with the disorder. Voxelotor, marketed by Global Blood Therapeutics, is approved under accelerated approval as a hemoglobin polymerization inhibitor. This approach maintains or increases the total amount of HbS, the mutant hemoglobin in SCD, by holding on to oxygen longer. Crizanlizumab, a P-selectin inhibitor marketed by Novartis AG, or Novartis, is approved for the reduction in the frequency of vaso-occlusive crises.
Blood transfusions can be utilized to decrease the sickling of RBCs. While blood transfusions can be critical to manage SCD, there are a number of limitations associated with this therapeutic approach, including limited patient access and serious complications such as iron overload. The only potentially curative treatment currently approved for severe SCD is bone marrow transplantation. However, this treatment option is not commonly used due to the difficulties of finding a suitable matching donor and the risks associated with the treatment, which include an approximately 5% mortality rate. Bone marrow transplantation is more commonly offered to pediatric patients with available sibling-matched donors.
While multiple experimental approaches to treat SCD are being explored in clinical trials, the majority are focused on symptomatic relief or as last-line gene therapy approaches. Symptomatic approaches under investigation aim to affect issues associated with cell adhesion, sickling, thrombosis and iron homeostasis. We anticipate that a novel oral HbF inducer that affects the root cause of SCD by inhibiting the pathological polymerization caused by the mutant hemoglobin may become the standard of care for SCD. Novartis and Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc. have received approval for therapies aiming to provide relief for specific elements of SCD (low hemoglobin and VOCs respectively). Several gene therapy approaches to treat SCD are focused on elevating HbF, however no gene therapy approaches have been approved for SCD and the efficacy, safety and durability of gene therapy approaches have yet to be established. Gene therapies need to be administered in an in-patient procedure through a bone marrow transplant, which is also referred to as a stem cell transplant or hematopoietic stem cell transplant. As part of the transplant process, the patient receives myeloablative chemotherapy which kills cells in the bone marrow in order to support the gene therapy. Despite ongoing efforts to develop gene therapies for SCD, we believe there is still a high unmet need that could be better addressed by a small molecule, oral therapy to treat the disease by increasing HbF.
SCD Biology
SCD is caused by a mutation in the HBB gene. This gene encodes a protein that is a key component of hemoglobin, a protein complex whose function is to transport oxygen in the body. Hemoglobin in adults is a complex of four proteins, two hemoglobin ß-subunits and two hemoglobin α-subunits. In patients with SCD, hemoglobin is composed of two mutant ß-subunits and two α-subunits and the result is the formation of HbS. The result of the mutation is less efficient oxygen transport and the formation of RBCs that have a sickle shape. These sickle shaped cells are much less flexible than healthy cells and can block blood vessels (vaso-occlusion) or rupture cells (lysis), leading to pain, anemia, irreversible organ damage or even death.
During fetal development, the major form of hemoglobin is HbF. Similar to hemoglobin in adults, HbF is also a complex of four proteins, two α-subunits and two γ-subunits. Shortly after birth, the genes encoding the γ-subunits, the HBG1 and HBG2 genes, are silenced and the HBB gene is activated. As described above, SCD is caused by a mutation in the HBB gene that gives rise to mutated ß-subunits.
A small subset of individuals with the sickle cell mutation continue to produce high levels of HbF due to inheritance of additional genetic mutations, which is called Hereditary Persistence of HbF, or HPFH. Patients with elevated HbF exhibit
15
minimal clinical manifestations of SCD. HbF levels as low as 3% over baseline in patients without HPFH, due to either therapeutic intervention or the inheritance of other genetic traits, can result in reduced clinical manifestations of the disease.
Our Approach to Address the Root Cause of SCD
Our strategy to address the root cause of SCD was to identify a drug mechanism that induces expression of HbF. We believe that FTX-6058 may address the root cause of SCD through this mechanism of action.
Overview of ß -Thalassemia
ß-thalassemia is a rare blood disorder associated with the absence or reduced production of ß-globin, which is one of the two proteins that comprise adult hemoglobin. This results in an abnormally low level of hemoglobin as well as an excess of α-globin chains that cause destruction of RBCs. The severity of the phenotype is related to the degree of imbalance between α- and non-α-globin chain synthesis. The absence of ß-globin due to HBB gene deletions is referred to as ß 0 thalassemia. Other HBB gene alterations allow some ß-globin to be produced but in reduced amounts. A reduced amount of ß-globin is called ß + thalassemia. Many patients with ß-thalassemia require chronic blood transfusions due to severe anemia that results from low hemoglobin levels, which are referred to as transfusion-dependent patients. It is estimated that 40,000 babies are born worldwide with ß-thalassemia per year of whom 25,000 require blood transfusions. Patients with ß-thalassemia are primarily treated by hematologists.
ß-thalassemia has been clinically characterized into three forms, depending on disease severity: major, intermedia and minor. The most severe form, ß-thalassemia major (also known as Cooley’s anemia), is generally diagnosed shortly after birth and patients have life-threatening anemia. Pediatric patients do not grow and gain weight at the typical rates, and often have liver, heart and bone problems. Many ß-thalassemia major patients require frequent blood transfusions to prevent severe anemia, a treatment that itself can cause long-term problems due to a build-up of iron in the body. ß-thalassemia intermedia is a less severe form of the disease that results in mild to moderate anemia. These patients sometimes require blood transfusions depending on the severity of the symptoms. Patients with ß-thalassemia minor suffer from very mild anemia and generally do not require treatment. Having either ß 0 or ß + thalassemia does not necessarily predict clinical disease severity as people with both types have been diagnosed with thalassemia major and thalassemia intermedia. Any increase in HbF has the potential to ameliorate the disease.
The current standard of care for many patients with ß-thalassemia is frequent blood transfusions to manage anemia. The only potentially curative therapy for ß-thalassemia is allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which is associated with risks of complications, including mortality, and is limited to patients with a suitable donor. The European Commission granted conditional marketing authorization for ZYNTEGLO, a gene therapy developed by bluebird bio, Inc., or bluebird, for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia and with certain genotypes, in Europe in June 2019. bluebird has initiated a rolling biologics license application, or BLA, submission for betibeglogene autotemcel in the United States. The FDA accepted the BLA for betibeglogene autotemcel for priority review in November 2021, with a PDUFA goal date of May 20, 2022. Acceleron in collaboration with Celgene Corp., or Celgene, received FDA
16
and EMA approval for luspatercept, an erythroid maturation agent for the treatment of adult patients with anemia associated with ß-thalassemia and who require frequent transfusions. There are also multiple other experimental approaches to treat ß-thalassemia being explored in clinical trials, including approaches that use small molecule, gene therapy and gene editing approaches. Despite ongoing efforts to develop new therapies for ß-thalassemia, we believe there is still a high unmet need that could be addressed by a small molecule, oral therapy to treatment the disease by increasing HbF.
Biology of ß-Thalassemia
ß-thalassemia is caused by genetic mutations in the HBB gene. The mutations interfere with the production of ß-globin. Some mutations result in no ß-globin being produced, while other mutations result in a decreased amount of ß-globin being produced.
Our Approach to Address the Root Cause of ß-Thalassemia
We believe that some types of ß-thalassemia may be treated by a therapy that upregulates HbF. Babies born with ß-thalassemia major generally do not have any symptoms shortly after birth because they have HbF in their blood. As the HbF levels decrease after birth and the ß-globin fails to increase, anemia appears and the babies with ß-thalassemia begin to exhibit symptoms of the disease. Patients with ß-thalassemia intermedia that have higher levels of HbFhave fewer symptoms than patients with low levels of HbF. We believe that FTX-6058 may be suitable for clinical development for the treatment of patients who are not ß 0 but who are transfusion dependent.
FulcrumSeek Identified the Drug Target for SCD and ß-Thalassemia
Applying FulcrumSeek, we conducted target identification and validation activities using human umbilical cord blood-derived erythroid progenitor 2, or HUDEP2, cells as a model to study HbF reactivation. HUDEP2 cells are immature RBCs. By screening our small molecule probe library and a CRISPR library, we identified several potential drug targets that activated the HBG1/2 genes and resulted in HbF elevation. Each screening approach identified the same protein complex which we believe plays an important role in the expression of genes responsible for the production of HbF. We conducted additional validation experiments in which we observed that inhibition of several components of this complex resulted in the desired elevation of HbF. We also observed that inhibition of these components did not adversely affect important cell health markers.
We selected a member of this protein complex for drug discovery activities following an assessment of its tractability as a drug target, which we refer to as the HbF drug target. The normal physiological role of the HbF drug target is to facilitate a post-translational protein modification, and the goal of our medicinal chemistry program was to optimize inhibitors of the HbF drug target. We developed in vitro and in vivo target engagement assays, as well as enabled X-ray crystallography, to discover and develop FTX-6058, a novel small molecule inhibitor of the HbF drug target.
FTX-6058
FTX-6058 is an oral HbF inducer that is in development for SCD and select other hemoglobinopathies, including ß-thalassemia. FTX-6058 is designed to bind to EED and inhibit the transcriptional silencing activity of the PRC2. By doing so, preclinical studies have shown that FTX-6058 downregulates key HbF repressors, including BCL11A and MYB, and upregulates HbF. We initiated our Phase 1b clinical trial of FTX-6058 in people with SCD in the fourth quarter of 2021. Additionally, we submitted an IND in the fourth quarter of 2021 for FTX-6058 in other select hemoglobinopathies, including ß-thalassemia, and expect to initiate a Phase 1b study in the second quarter of 2022. In February 2022, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to FTX-6058 for the treatment of SCD.
Clinical Trial: Phase 1 FTX-6058
In the fourth quarter of 2020, we initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of FTX-6058 in healthy adult volunteers. The Phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and PK of ascending doses of FTX-6058. In the SAD cohorts, healthy volunteers received one dose of either placebo or 2, 4, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 60mg of FTX-6058. In the MAD cohorts, healthy volunteers received a once-daily dose of placebo or 2, 6, 10, 20 or 30mg of FTX-6058 for 14 consecutive days. Each MAD cohort had six subjects on drug and two on placebo. Food effect was also studied in a separate 20mg dose cohort. Exploratory measures were included in the MAD cohorts to assess target engagement, changes in HBG mRNA and HbF-containing reticulocytes (F-reticulocytes). A 6mg dose cohort in people with SCD was later added to this trial to further inform PK and PD modeling for future dose selection. All other cohorts in the trial have been completed.
17
We reported data from the 2, 4, 10, 20, 30 and 40mg SAD cohorts and the 2, 6 and 10 mg MAD cohorts in healthy volunteers in August 2021, and we reported data from the 60 mg SAD cohort and the 20 and 30 mg MAD cohorts in healthy volunteers, as well as data from the 20 mg cohort assessing food effect in December 2021.
FTX-6058 was generally well-tolerated with no SAEs reported and no discontinuations due to TEAEs across all SAD and MAD cohorts. Data continued to show dose-proportional PK, with a mean half-life of approximately 6-7 hours in the MAD cohorts, supporting once-daily dosing, and no food effect was observed with FTX-6058. Data from the MAD cohorts continued to show robust target engagement, as evidenced by an approximately 75-95% reduction from baseline in H3K27me3 after 14 days of treatment. Based on our preclinical studies, this level of target engagement is predicted to result in robust induction of HBG1/2 and subsequently increase HbF production.
Data from the MAD cohorts also showed time- and dose-dependent HBG mRNA induction, as shown in the chart below, demonstrating proof-of-biology. Persistent HBG mRNA induction was observed for 7-10 days after treatment. In preclinical studies of FTX-6058, increases in HBG mRNA have consistently translated to the same fold increases in HbF protein. Notably, human genetics show that 2-3-fold increases in HbF are associated with significantly improved outcomes, and even functional cures, in people with SCD. FTX-6058 has now demonstrated greater than a mean 2-fold induction starting with the 6mg dose.
HBG mRNA Mean Fold Induction for FTX-6058 versus Placebo
2mg*
6mg*
10mg*
20 mg
30mg
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Mean Fold Induction
P-value
Day 7
1.28
0.3494
1.94
0.0135
2.08
0.0063
2.06
0.0072
2.29
0.0025
Day 14
1.20
0.5122
2.45
0.0025
3.54
<0.0001
5.63
<0.0001
6.15
<0.0001
Safety Follow-up (Day 21-24)
1.21
0.3736
2.75
<0.0001
3.22
<0.0001
6.45
<0.0001
6.13
<0.0001
As shown in the chart below, F-reticulocytes also increased as of the safety follow up visit, which was seven to 10 days after conclusion of dosing. Notably, increases in F-reticulocytes of any magnitude are a first indicator that HBG mRNA is translating to HbF protein production but fold changes in F-reticulocytes are not correlated with fold changes in HbF.
F-Reticulocyte Mean Fold Increase for FTX-6058 versus Placebo
2mg*
6mg*
10mg*
20 mg
30mg
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Mean Fold Increase
P-value
Day 7
0.53
0.1070
1.02
0.9524
0.83
0.6214
0.71
0.3831
1.50
0.2928
Day 14
0.88
0.6881
1.25
0.4895
2.23
0.0180
1.00
0.9880
1.71
0.1049
Safety Follow-up (Day 21-24)
0.63
0.2167
1.65
0.0943
3.93
<0.0001
1.79
0.0591
2.38
0.0059
* Fold changes from these cohorts were updated to reflect the fold-increase over pooled placebo data across all cohorts from 2-30mg versus previously reported fold changes over pooled placebo data across 2-10mg cohorts.
In fourth quarter of 2021, we initiated a Phase 1b clinical trial in SCD patients and we expect to report initial data from that trial in the second quarter of 2022. This trial could provide an opportunity to demonstrate HbF protein induction in people living with SCD and will be used to help inform a potential Phase 2/3 trial, which we anticipate initiating in 2023. We also submitted an IND in the fourth quarter of 2021 to support the initiation of clinical development in non-SCD hemoglobinopathies, including ß-thalassemia. We anticipate initiating a Phase 1b trial in non-SCD hemoglobinopathies in the second quarter of 2022.
Preclinical Studies
We have observed in vitro and in vivo activation of the HBG1/2 genes in preclinical studies with FTX-6058. We observed that FTX-6058 elevated levels of HbF with minimal adverse effects on important cellular health markers. As
18
depicted in the graphic below, we also observed in vitro upregulation of HbF in primary human CD34+ cells differentiated into RBCs from five different healthy human donors and one SCD donor after seven days of drug treatment. FTX-6058 showed a significant elevation of HbF over baseline in each of these six donor cell lines. We have conducted additional preclinical profiling in CD34+ derived cells and observed that treatment with FTX-6058 increased HbF levels to approximately 30% of total hemoglobin, as measured by mass spectrometry, high performance liquid chromatography, and fast protein liquid chromatography techniques. Notably, based on a review of data from other mechanisms, HbF fold induction in CD34+ cells has translated reliably into the clinic.
Effect of FTX-6058 treatment
in differentiated primary human CD34+ cells
Additionally, we compared the effect of FTX-6058 in CD34+ derived cells relative to that of hydroxyurea. We observed that hydroxyurea had a minimal impact on HbF elevation, whereas we observed that FTX-6058 significantly elevated HbF. In cells treated with the combination of FTX-6058 and hydroxyurea, we observed an increased effect relative to either compound alone.
Additionally, we studied FTX-6058 in a mouse model of SCD, known as the Townes mouse model. In this model, mouse globin genes have been replaced with human globin genes, thereby allowing investigations of mechanisms that may regulate human hemoglobin gene expression. The Townes mouse model has been widely used to study potential treatments for SCD. As shown in the figures below, we observed that FTX-6058 resulted in a significant increase in HbFexpressing cells, or F-cells, and HbF protein levels after 13 days of dosing at 5 mg/kg once per day whereas hydroxyurea resulted in modest increases in F-cells and HbF.
Percentage of F-cells in Townes mice
treated with FTX-6058
HbF protein levels in Townes mice
treated with FTX-6058
In the graphic on the left, we quantified the percentage of F-cells as a percentage of total cells (%F-cells) for the three treatment conditions from mouse blood, shown as a percentage of vehicle-alone-treated SCD mice. In the graphic on the right, we determined the level of human HbF protein for the three treatment conditions, quantifying HbF protein as a
19
percentage of total hemoglobin. Each value represents the mean value from eight mice per treatment after 13 days of treatment. In these studies, we used a conventional method of assessing statistical significance known as a one-way analysis of variance, or ANOVA. The p-value for FTX-6058 was less than 0.001 for both studies and the p-value for hydroxyurea in the study depicted on the right was less than 0.01.
Overview of Our Product Engine
FulcrumSeek is a high-throughput discovery platform that we designed to identify and validate drug targets that balance the expression of the genes known to drive or ameliorate root cause biology. We obtain patient-derived, tissue-relevant cell lines or other relevant human cell lines. We then differentiate these cell lines into those most relevant for the disease pathology, including skeletal muscle myotubes, cardiomyocytes, neurons, RBCs, or other cell lines of interest, which we then scale up, characterize and prepare for screening. We also generate methods to quantify the desired modulation of expression of the gene of interest in these cell lines. We apply our highly annotated proprietary small-molecule compound library and customized CRISPR or RNAi libraries to the cells to assess for the desired modulation. We have continued to build our capabilities to maximally profile changes in transcription that occur when relevant cells are treated with small molecules or genetic reagents. In addition to profiling a specific gene of interest, we can evaluate multiple genes of potential interest through multiplexed transcriptome profiling to assess effects on root cause biology. We have made significant enhancements to FulcrumSeek so thousands of transcripts can be measured, and additional features of cellular health and function can be assessed using high-throughput imaging techniques. We confirm drug target hits with multiple modalities and undertake further validation in several patient-derived, tissue-relevant cell lines. Additional studies in these cell models are conducted to understand how the modulation of the gene of interest affects cellular function. We employ computational biology, such as machine learning algorithms, to guide drug target selection and generate hypotheses on other drug targets that might be related along a gene regulatory pathway.
To further optimize and increase productivity of FulcrumSeek, we have continued to invest in customized lab automation and applied technologies. We believe that these investments have increased assay throughput and robustness and have expanded the breadth of biological parameters we can effectively measure in our assay systems. The first-generation of our product engine was focused on single gene readouts, simple immunocytochemistry, and one-dimensional data analysis focused on an individual gene of interest. With continued investment in the product engine, we have enabled our next-generation product engine which utilizes RNAseq, high-content imaging, and machine learning. We believe that this next-generation product engine enables drug target screening at scale in physiologically relevant assay systems.
We designed our discovery and development model to recapitulate this systematic approach of applying FulcrumSeek to each new disease that we evaluate with the goal of providing disease-modifying therapies to patients. The following graphic presents an overview of our drug target identification process.
20
Importantly, we designed FulcrumSeek to iteratively and systematically explore disease or indication areas of interest by incorporating both preclinical and clinical data related to potential drug targets. In the case of heterogeneous diseases, this iterative and systematic approach enables us to explore diseases with less-defined root cause genes, and instead screen for targets that modulate root cause biology. This approach not only enables us to validate the translatability of our preclinical models to the clinic, but also enables us to generate unique clinical biology insights utilizing public and proprietary clinical datasets. As a result, we believe that we have greatly expands the number of diseases that we can potentially interrogate with FulcrumSeek.
Disease-Relevant Cell Models
Accurate modeling of human disease is critical for drug discovery endeavors, and we have the ability to model disease and identify drug targets that modulate gene expression in patient-derived, differentiated cells and other disease-relevant cell models. These cells provide the appropriate context in which to understand signaling pathways that affect human gene expression and function, and they have the potential to increase the translatability from preclinical studies to clinical trials. Prior to initiating screening activities, we characterize and expand the cells. We also create a cell line where the genetic defect associated with the disease has been corrected, or use a cell line from a healthy individual, in order to compare the gene regulation between diseased and normal cells. If the degree of gene activation or repression required to have a functional benefit is not known, we will undertake physiological characterization of these cell lines in order to define what threshold of gene regulation is functionally relevant.
Drug Target Identification
We employ three approaches to identify drug targets that can potentially modulate gene expression to treat genetically defined diseases at the root cause—two lab-based library screening approaches as well as computational biology using our FulcrumSeek database and other databases. We then evaluate possible drug targets identified from these efforts with the goal to advance programs into lead optimization.
Highly Annotated Small Molecule Compound Library
Our small molecule probe library is annotated, which means it consists of known, well-characterized molecules that interact with biochemical mechanisms and that have cellular activity. The purpose of our small molecule probe library is to identify and interrogate mechanisms that regulate the expression of genes of interest. We designed our library with the intent to optimize biological diversity, in contrast with other small molecule screening approaches that optimize chemical diversity. Our library currently includes more than 6,000 small molecules relating to approximately 2,500 biochemical targets covering a wide breadth of pharmacology, including chromatin modifiers, transcription regulation and RNA processing, kinases and metabolic enzymes. Our library will continue to expand as we identify and acquire new mechanistic probes.
Genetic Screening
We may also use a customized CRISPR or RNAi library screening, which is an approach to interrogate the genome by selectively knocking out, reducing or increasing gene expression, for target identification. We have chosen to use CRISPR and RNAi libraries as complementary or additional screening tools for drug target identification alongside our small molecule screening approach. If small molecules that interact with these targets are identified from the literature, they are then obtained for further pharmacological validation. If no known chemical matter is available, we may establish a screen to identify chemical matter that interacts with the drug target. This chemical matter would serve as a starting point for medicinal chemistry work. Alternatively, we may seek partnerships for development using other modalities.
21
Computational Biology & Analytics
We have a proprietary database containing profiles of the effect of perturbagens, or disruptions to cellular processes, on disease-relevant, human derived cell systems. The features captured in this database consist of measures of gene regulation on thousands of genes, and other important assessments of cellular function and health. Our database and analysis can provide information as to which genes are modulated by our perturbagens and which genes may be difficult to modulate. This information is then integrated into our decision-making process for disease selection. Using FulcrumSeek, our approach is to leverage our network biology capabilities and expertise to determine how pathways interact with each other in a cell, to develop a network map of regulatory interactions that control gene expression and cellular function and propose targets that potentially could be pursued to modulate the root cause gene or root cause biology of diseases of interest. In each case, we explore these hypotheses through biological experimentation designed to validate predicted drug targets and biomarkers. We use confirmatory studies to aid in the refinement of our computational models in an iterative manner.
Drug Target Validation
Our initial focus on drug target validation is to establish a robust link between the drug target that we identified through our screening approaches and modulation of the expression of the root cause gene of interest. Our validation work seeks to evaluate identified drug targets in a manner that allows us to prioritize targets where we may be able to deliver safe and effective therapies to patients. We conduct our validation tests using a diverse set of pharmacological tools and multiple genetic reagents to profile their effect on orthogonal read-outs of gene expression (RNA and protein) and the subsequent effects on physiological function.
The important elements of our systematic approach to drug target validation include:
• Evaluation of different treatment modalities to interact with the drug target: we evaluate whether small molecules and genomic modulation approaches similarly affect expression of the gene of interest.
• Efficacy: we attempt to establish a link between the identified drug target and the level of the expression of the gene of interest.
• Safety: we evaluate whether modulation of the target and the resulting changes in gene expression cause undesired effects, including an assessment of cell health markers to ensure there is minimal cellular toxicity.
• Profiling cell lines from multiple patients: we analyze the modulation of the drug target to determine whether the original cell line used to screen targets is representative of disease in other patients.
• Verification: we conduct studies designed to ensure that the modulation of the drug target and the resulting change in gene expression leads to a desired functional effect.
• Prioritization: we prioritize drug targets based on our assessment of our ability to deliver a candidate for clinical development based on that target.
Development Candidate Discovery and Characterization
Following target identification and target validation, we initiate medicinal chemistry and drug discovery activities to advance a development candidate that is suitable for testing in clinical trials. This work optimizes characteristics that are important for an orally available small molecule, including potency, selectivity, PK and safety parameters. There is an opportunity to bypass or considerably accelerate discovery and characterization activities if we identify and validate an attractive drug target that has been pursued previously by others in different indications. For example, available chemical matter and support from the scientific literature regarding p38α/ß enabled us to rapidly identify our product candidate for the treatment of FSHD.
A key element of our preclinical compound profiling approach is to investigate a development candidate across many patient-derived tissue-relevant cells. We choose these cells based on our assessment of the patient heterogeneity that may be encountered in clinical trials. The purpose of this analysis is to enable us to understand if the activity of the molecule differs among cells with different genetic subtypes, or if a patient stratification strategy is appropriate for clinical trials.
22
Many genetically defined diseases are not well modeled with animal models because such models do not have appropriate predictive validity. In these cases, we seek to develop an engraftment model where patient-derived human cells are engrafted into the relevant tissue of a host, immunodeficient mouse to produce a chimeric mouse. We may use these chimeric mice to assess gene regulation in the engrafted human cells, and for the efficient development of PK/PD, relationships that will be the basis of therapeutic index calculations and human dose projections.
Advantages of a Small Molecule Approach
We believe that our approach to the treatment of genetically defined diseases using orally available, small molecule therapeutics may offer significant advantages over other treatment modalities due to:
• Biodistribution: small molecules can achieve broad distribution in the body. The ability to access tissues broadly is particularly relevant in neuromuscular disorders where multiple muscles are affected by disease, or in CNS disorders where brain permeability may be limited with other treatment modalities.
• Tolerability: small molecules have a limited risk of immunogenicity and lack procedural risk relative to administering other treatment modalities, such as ASOs and gene therapies.
• Manufacturing and quality: the production and quality control of drug supplies for clinical development are well understood. Specialized facilities are generally not required, and many vendors offer services for manufacturing. We believe small molecule manufacturing may provide cost advantages relative to other modalities.
• Patient access: small molecule, oral medicines can be administered by the patient and do not require complicated in-patient procedures that are sometimes only available in a limited number of treatment centers.
Discovery Screening Programs
We have leveraged FulcrumSeek to discover targets that we are pursuing with small molecules for FSHD, SCD and ß-thalassemia. We are leveraging the broad applicability of FulcrumSeek to discover drug targets for other rare, genetically defined diseases across muscular, hematologic and neurologic disorders.
Our target identification strategy and approach continue to evolve. In addition to conducting screens to identify targets that modulate the expression of a single root cause gene, we are able to simultaneously interrogate multiple (approximately 10) root cause genes and to monitor effects on cell health all in a single screen ( i.e ., multiplexed screening). We believe that this new approach provides significant efficiencies in productivity and allows us to test multiple hypotheses in parallel. Importantly, the expansion of FulcrumSeek with the use of high content molecular profiling, including RNAseq and cellular imaging, allows us to simultaneously measure the expression of 8,000-10,000 genes and integrate key measures related to cell health and biology, which enables us to scale our screening capacity and productivity. With the use of our small molecule probe library and our functional genomics capabilities, we aim to conduct target identification at a significantly increased scale and with cost-effectiveness. Moreover, we are using our product engine in hypothesis testing mode and in hypothesis generation mode, which we expect to increase the probability of identifying attractive targets to advance in our portfolio or in collaboration with partners.
23
License Agreements and Collaborations
Right of Reference and License Agreement with GlaxoSmithKline
In February 2019, we entered into a right of reference and license agreement with affiliates of GSK, as amended in September 2020, pursuant to which GSK granted us a right of reference to certain INDs filed with the FDA and controlled by GSK or its affiliates relating to losmapimod and an exclusive worldwide license under certain patent rights related to losmapimod. The agreement also provides us with an exclusive worldwide license to certain of GSK’s preclinical and clinical data with respect to losmapimod. As partial consideration for the right of reference and licenses granted under the agreement, we issued 12,500,000 shares of our Series B preferred stock to GSK at the time we entered into the reference and license agreement. The agreement obligates us to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize a licensed product for the treatment of FSHD.
The agreement grants us an exclusive, sublicensable license under the licensed patent rights and data rights to research, develop and commercialize losmapimod or any product containing losmapimod as an API, which we refer to as a licensed product, to treat disease in humans. GSK retained the right, without the right to grant sublicenses, to conduct nonclinical research under the licensed patents and data rights and, with our consent, GSK may engage in certain developmental activities relating to the use of a licensed product in connection with a specified prophylactic use. GSK also agreed to and has since transferred to us its existing manufactured supply of losmapimod.
Under the agreement, we will be obligated to make milestone payments to GSK aggregating up to $37.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones with respect to the first licensed product to first achieve such milestones, including a $2.5 million milestone payment we made to GSK during the year ended December 31, 2019 upon the initiation of the first Phase 2 clinical trial for a licensed product, and up to $60.0 million upon the first achievement of one-time aggregate annual worldwide net sales milestones for a licensed product. We will also be obligated to pay royalties ranging from a mid single-digit percentage to a low double-digit, but less than teens, percentage to GSK based on our, and any of our affiliates’ and sublicensees’, annual net sales of licensed products. The royalties are payable on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis, and may be reduced in specified circumstances.
Our obligation to make royalty payments extends with respect to a licensed product in a country until the earlier of the approval of a generic version of such licensed product by the applicable regulatory agency in such country or the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country, which we refer to as the royalty term. Following the expiration of any exclusive marketing rights or data exclusivity rights granted by a regulatory authority, other than patent rights, for any licensed product on a country-by-country basis, the applicable royalty rate will be reduced in such country. Additionally, if we or our affiliates or sublicensees determine that it is necessary to obtain a license from a third party under any patent rights to exploit a licensed product in a country, then we may deduct a certain percentage of the license fees under such third party license payable by us to the third party from the royalty payment that would otherwise be due to GSK in such country.
If, prior to our completion of a Phase 2 clinical trial for a licensed product, we wish to sublicense any of the licensed patent or data rights granted to us under the agreement to any third party outside of the United States, we must notify GSK of the terms on which we propose to grant such sublicense. GSK has the right to enter into negotiations with us for such sublicense, and if GSK so elects, then we must negotiate in good faith with GSK for a prescribed period. If we and GSK do not agree to a sublicense of the relevant rights, we may sublicense the relevant rights to the third party on terms no less favorable than any terms offered to us by GSK.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms, the agreement continues on a country-by-country and licensed product-by-licensed product basis until the expiration of the royalty term in each country, at which time the agreement expires with respect to such licensed product in such country and we shall have a fully-paid up, royalty-free and perpetual license to the licensed patent rights and data rights with respect to such licensed product in such country. Either party has the right to terminate the agreement if the other party has materially breached in the performance of its obligations under the agreement and such breach has not been cured within the applicable cure period.
Collaboration and License Agreement with Acceleron, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck
In December 2019, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Acceleron to identify biological targets to modulate specific pathways associated with a targeted indication within the pulmonary disease space. Under the terms of the collaboration and license agreement, we granted Acceleron an exclusive worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights to make, have made, use, sell, have sold, import, export, distribute and have distributed, market, have marketed, promote, have promoted, or otherwise exploit molecules and products directed against or expressing certain
24
biological targets identified by us for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of a targeted indication within the pulmonary disease space, or the Indication.
Pursuant to a mutually agreed research plan, we will perform assay screening and related research activities to identify and validate potential biological targets for further research, in order to support the development, manufacture and commercialization of product candidates by Acceleron. Upon completion of the research activities, we will deliver a data package to Acceleron with respect to the biological targets identified by us in the conduct of the research activities for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of the Indication. Within a designated period after receipt of the data package, Acceleron will have the right to designate a specified number of the biological targets identified by us as relevant for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of the Indication, for Acceleron’s research, development, manufacture and commercialization of products or molecules directed to such targets, or the Targets. If Acceleron does not designate any Targets during the designated period, then the agreement will automatically terminate. If Acceleron designates one or more Targets, then Acceleron will be obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to seek regulatory approval for one product directed to a Target in certain specified countries. Upon receipt of regulatory approval for any product directed to a Target in any of such certain specified countries, Acceleron must use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize such product in each of such certain specified countries.
While we are performing the research activities pursuant to the research plan and for a specified period thereafter, we may not research, develop, manufacture, commercialize, use, or otherwise exploit any compound or product for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of the Indication other than for Acceleron. While we are performing the research activities pursuant to the research plan and for a specified period thereafter, other than for Acceleron, we may not research, develop, manufacture, commercialize, use, or otherwise exploit any compound or product for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of the Indication that is directed against certain specified biological targets identified by us in the performance of the research activities.
Acceleron may also request that we perform medicinal chemistry services related to the generation and optimization of molecules directed against or expressing biological targets for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of the Indication beyond the scope of the research plan. If we agree to provide such medicinal chemistry services, we and Acceleron will negotiate to determine the scope, timeline and budget for such medicinal chemistry services.
Under the agreement, Acceleron made a $10.0 million upfront payment to us. We will be entitled to research milestone payments of up to $18.5 million in the aggregate upon first achievement of specified research milestones. Additionally, we will be entitled to development milestone payments of up to $135.0 million in the aggregate upon the first achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestones by a product directed to a Target, and up to $67.5 million in the aggregate upon the second achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestones by a product directed to a Target. We will also be entitled to sales-based milestone payments of up to $145.0 million in the aggregate upon the achievement of one-time aggregate annual worldwide net sales milestones for the first product directed to a Target to achieve such milestones, and up to $72.5 million in the aggregate upon the achievement of one-time aggregate annual worldwide net sales milestones for the second product directed to a Target to achieve such milestones. To date, we have achieved $2.0 million of specified research milestones. Acceleron will also pay us tiered royalties ranging from a mid single-digit percentage to a low double-digit percentage based on Acceleron’s, and any of its affiliates’ and sublicensees’, annual worldwide net sales of products directed to any Target. The royalties are payable on a product-by-product basis during a specified royalty term, and may be reduced in specified circumstances.
The agreement continues on a country-by-country and Target-by-Target basis until the expiration of the last to expire royalty term for a product directed to such Target, at which time the agreement expires with respect to such Target in such country, unless the agreement is terminated earlier in accordance with its terms. Either party has the right to terminate the agreement if the other party has materially breached in the performance of its obligations under the agreement and such breach has not been cured within the applicable cure period. Acceleron also has the right to terminate the agreement for convenience in its entirety or on a Target-by-Target and molecule-by-molecule basis with respect to any molecule directed against a Target, upon prior written notice to us.
Collaboration and License Agreement with MyoKardia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
In July 2020, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with MyoKardia to identify biological targets that are capable of modulating genes of interest with relevance to certain genetically defined cardiomyopathies. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted MyoKardia an exclusive worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights to research, develop, make, have made, use, have used, sell, have sold, offer for sale, have offered for sale, import, have imported, export, have exported, distribute, have distributed, market, have marketed, promote, have promoted, or otherwise exploit products directed against certain biological targets identified by us that are capable of modulating certain genes of interest with relevance to certain genetically defined cardiomyopathies.
25
Pursuant to a mutually agreed research plan, we will perform assay screening and related research activities to identify and validate up to a specified number of potential cardiomyopathy gene targets, or the Identified Targets, for further research, development, manufacture and commercialization by MyoKardia. We and MyoKardia will work together to determine how best to advance at each stage of the research activities under the research plan and to identify which of the Identified Targets, if any, meet the criteria set forth in the research plan, or the Cardiomyopathy Target Candidates. Upon completion of the research plan, the parties will work together to prepare a final data package and MyoKardia may designate certain Cardiomyopathy Target Candidates for MyoKardia’s further exploitation under the agreement, or the Cardiomyopathy Targets. If MyoKardia does not designate any Cardiomyopathy Targets during the designated period, then the agreement will automatically terminate. If MyoKardia designates one or more Cardiomyopathy Targets, then MyoKardia will be obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to seek regulatory approval for and to commercialize one product directed against an Identified Target in certain specified countries.
During the period in which we are performing the research activities pursuant to the research plan, or the Research Term and for a specified period beyond the Research Term if MyoKardia designates a Cardiomyopathy Target, we may only use the data generated from such research activities for MyoKardia in accordance with the agreement. During the Research Term and for a specified period thereafter, we may not research, develop, manufacture, commercialize, use, or otherwise exploit any compound or product (a) that is a compound or product under the agreement that is directed against the Cardiomyopathy Target Candidates for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of any indication or (b) for the treatment of any genetically defined cardiomyopathies shown to be related to certain specified genes of interest that are modulated by the Cardiomyopathy Targets.
Under the agreement, MyoKardia made a $10.0 million upfront payment and a $2.5 million payment as prepaid research funding to us in July 2020. MyoKardia will also reimburse us for the costs of the research activities not covered by the prepaid research funding, up to a maximum amount of total research funding (including the prepaid research funding). Upon the achievement of specified preclinical, development and sales-based milestones, we will be entitled to preclinical milestone payments, development milestone payments and sales-based milestone payments of up to $298.5 million in the aggregate per target for certain Identified Targets, and of up to $150.0 million in the aggregate per target for certain other Identified Targets. To date, we have achieved a $2.5 million specified preclinical milestone. MyoKardia will also pay us tiered royalties ranging from a mid single-digit percentage to a low double-digit percentage based on MyoKardia’s, and any of its affiliates’ and sublicensees’, annual worldwide net sales of products under the agreement directed against any Identified Target. The royalties are payable on a product-by-product basis during a specified royalty term, and may be reduced in specified circumstances.
The agreement continues on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis until the expiration of the last to expire royalty term for a product, at which time the agreement expires with respect to such product in such country, unless the agreement is terminated earlier in accordance with its terms. Either party has the right to terminate the agreement if the other party has materially breached in the performance of its obligations and such breach has not been cured within the applicable cure period. MyoKardia also has the right to terminate the agreement for convenience in its entirety or on a target-by-target, product-by-product or molecule-by-molecule basis, upon prior written notice to us.
Intellectual Property
We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including by seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in our field.
Our future commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to: obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce in our intellectual property rights, in particular our patents rights; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing, misappropriating or violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.
The patent positions of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies like ours are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific and factual issues. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. We also cannot ensure that patents will issue with respect to any patent applications that we or our licensors may file in the future, nor can we ensure that any of our owned or licensed patents or future patents will be commercially useful in protecting our product candidates and methods of manufacturing the same. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application may be significantly reduced before a patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted and
26
even challenged after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any of our products will be protected or remain protectable by enforceable patents. Moreover, any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” for a more comprehensive description of risks related to our intellectual property.
We generally file patent applications directed to our key programs in an effort to secure our intellectual property positions vis-a-vis these programs. As of February 24, 2022, we owned or in-licensed nine U.S. patents, six U.S. pending non-provisional patent applications and related pending foreign patent applications, and four U.S. provisional patent applications.
The intellectual property portfolio for our most advanced programs as of February 24, 2022, is summarized below. Prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may be significantly narrowed before issuance, if issued at all. We expect this may be the case with respect to some of our pending patent applications referred to below.
Losmapimod
With respect to losmapimod, we own one U.S. patent covering the method of use of losmapimod for the treatment of patients with FSHD and one U.S. patent covering the use of other clinical-stage p38 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with FSHD, each of which are expected to expire in 2038, and related patents and pending patent applications in Canada and Mexico, Europe, Africa, Australia and New Zealand, South America, and Asia with expiration dates in 2038. We also own two related pending U.S. non-provisional applications and one U.S. provisional application relating to method of using losmapimod for FSHD and other disorders that, if resulting in issued patents, are expected to expire between 2038 and 2042. The patents to losmapimod licensed from GSK as a composition of matter and pharmaceutical composition are expected to expire on February 10, 2023.
FTX-6058
Currently, our patent portfolio related to FTX-6058 includes one issued U.S. patent directed to composition of matter that is expected to expire in 2040, two U.S. non-provisional applications and related pending patent applications in Canada and Mexico, Europe, Africa, Australia and New Zealand, South America, and Asia that, if issued, are expected to expire between 2039 and 2040. We also own three pending U.S. provisional applications directed to FTX-6058 methods of use and formulations, that, if resulting in an issued patent, would be expected to expire in 2042.
The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application.
In the United States, the term of a patent covering an FDA-approved drug may, in certain cases, be eligible for a patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 as compensation for the loss of patent term during the FDA regulatory review process. The period of extension may be up to five years, but cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. It is possible that issued U.S. patents covering the use of losmapimod and products from our intellectual property may be entitled to patent term extensions. If our use of drug candidates or the drug candidate itself receive FDA approval, we intend to apply for patent term extensions, if available, to extend the term of patents that cover the approved use or drug candidate. We also intend to seek patent term extensions in any jurisdictions where available, however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions.
27
In addition to patent protection, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and confidential know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with any collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees. We also have agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected consultants, scientific advisors and collaborators. These agreements may not provide meaningful protection. These agreements may also be breached, and we may not have an adequate remedy for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets and/or confidential know-how may become known or be independently developed by a third party, or misused by any collaborator to whom we disclose such information. Despite any measures taken to protect our intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products or to obtain or use information that we regard as proprietary. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information, third parties may independently develop the same or similar proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. As a result, we may be unable to meaningfully protect our trade secrets and proprietary information. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property” for a more comprehensive description of risks related to our intellectual property.
Manufacturing
We do not have any manufacturing facilities. We have obtained sufficient losmapimod tablets, or drug product, from GSK to complete our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trials in FSHD. We have engaged a contract manufacturing organization to prepare our own API and to manufacture losmapimod tablets, and we believe that we have produced a sufficient quantity of losmapimod API and tablets to complete our planned Phase 3 clinical trial in FSHD.
We have obtained sufficient quantities of FTX-6058 from a contract manufacturing organization to complete our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trials.
We expect to continue to rely on third parties for the manufacture of FTX-6058 for any future clinical trials and for the manufacture of any future product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if our product candidates receive marketing approval. Our lead product candidates are small molecules and can be manufactured in reliable and reproducible synthetic processes from readily available starting materials. We expect to continue to develop product candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.
Competition
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technologies, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.
Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.
The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our therapeutic product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the effectiveness of companion diagnostics in guiding the use of related therapeutics, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.
Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval or emergency use authorizations for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. If our product
28
candidates achieve marketing approval, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products.
If our lead product candidates are approved for the indications for which we are currently undertaking clinical trials, they will compete with the therapies and currently marketed drugs discussed below.
FSHD
There are no approved therapies for the treatment of FSHD. Controlled trials of albuterol, corticosteroids and a myostatin inhibitor all failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit to patients with FSHD. Low-intensity aerobic exercise tailored to the patient’s distribution of weakness may provide some limited beneficial effect. Limited range of motion in the shoulder girdle can stem from periscapular muscle weakness, and in such cases surgical scapular fixation can result in some functional improvement for certain patients. There is also no standard practice regarding the use of physical or occupational therapy across countries and sites.
We are not aware of any product candidate currently in clinical development for FSHD with the same mechanism of action as losmapimod or that is designed to treat the root cause of FSHD.
SCD
Approved drug treatments for SCD focus primarily on the management and reduction of pain episodes, vaso-occlusive crises, and inhibition of hemoglobin S polymerization. The four drug treatments approved in the United States are hydroxyurea, voxelotor, crizanlizumab, and L-glutamine. Hydroxyurea, marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, is approved for the treatment of anemia related to SCD, to reduce the frequency of painful crises and the need for blood transfusions. Voxelotor, marketed by Global Blood Therapeutics, is approved under accelerated approval as a hemoglobin polymerization inhibitor. Crizanlizumab, marketed by Novartis, is approved for the reduction in the frequency of vasoocclusive crises. L-glutamine, marketed by Emmaus Life Sciences, Inc., is approved to reduce severe complications associated with the disorder.
Blood transfusions can be utilized to decrease the sickling of RBCs. While blood transfusions can be critically important to the management of SCD, there are a number of limitations associated with this therapeutic approach, including limited patient access and serious complications such as iron overload. The only potentially curative treatment currently approved for severe SCD is bone marrow transplantation. However, this treatment option is not commonly used given the difficulties of finding a suitable matched donor and the risks associated with the treatment, which include an approximately 5% mortality rate. Bone marrow transplantation is more commonly offered to pediatric patients with available sibling-matched donors.
FTX-6058 could face competition from a number of different therapeutic approaches in development for patients with SCD. Novo Nordisk A/S is evaluating EPI01, a small molecule designed to increase production of HbF, which has completed a Phase 1 clinical trial. Imara, Inc. is evaluating IMR-687, a PDE9 inhibitor, in Phase 2a and Phase 2b clinical trials in patients with sickle cell anemia. Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is evaluating mitapivat, a PKR activator, in a Phase 2/3 clinical trial in patients with SCD. Forma Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., is evaluating FT-4202, a PKR activator, in a Phase 2/3 clinical trial. Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc. is evaluating GBT-601, an HbS polymerization inhibitor, that is anticipated to initiate a Phase 2 study by mid-2022 as well as inclacumab, a P-selectin inhibitor that is being evaluated in two Phase 3 trials. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, is evaluating TAK-755, recombinant ADAMTS13 protein, in a Phase 1 clinical trial in participants with baseline health SCD and SCD with acute vaso-occlusive crisis. Pfizer, is evaluating PF-06755347, an E-selectin antagonist, in a Phase 1 clinical trial. CRISPR Therapeutics AG (in collaboration with Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, or Vertex), is evaluating CTX001, a gene therapy, in a Phase 1/2/3 clinical trial. CRISPR Therapeutics AG and Vertex plan to file a BLA/MAA in Q4 2022. Aruvant Sciences, Inc. is evaluating ARU-1801, a gene therapy, in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial. CSL Behring, is evaluating CSL200 CAL-H, a gene therapy, in a Phase 1 clinical trial. Sangamo Therapeutics Inc., or Sangamo is developing SAR445136, a gene editing cell therapy that modifies cells to produce functional RBCs using HbF, in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial. bluebird is evaluating lovo-cel, a gene therapy, in a Phase 3 clinical trial. There are also several other gene editing approaches being evaluated by Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. (in collaboration with Novartis), Editas Medicine, Inc., and Beam Therapeutics.
ß-thalassemia
The current standard of care for many patients with ß-thalassemia is frequent blood transfusions to manage anemia. The only potentially curative therapy for ß-thalassemia is allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which is associated with risks of complications, including mortality, and is limited to patients with a suitable donor. The European Commission
29
granted conditional marketing authorization for ZYNTEGLO, a gene therapy developed by bluebird, for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia and with certain genotypes, in Europe in June 2019. However, in August 2021, bluebird announced plans to end commercial operations in Europe and has decided to focus on the U.S. market. The FDA accepted the BLA for betibeglogene autotemcel for priority review in November 2021, with a PDUFA goal date of May 20, 2022. Acceleron in collaboration with Celgene, received FDA and EMA approval for luspatercept, an erythroid maturation agent for the treatment of adult patients with anemia associated with ß-thalassemia and who require frequent transfusions. There are also multiple other experimental approaches to treat ß-thalassemia being explored in clinical trials, including approaches that use small molecule, gene therapy and gene editing approaches. Despite ongoing efforts to develop new therapies for ß-thalassemia, we believe there is still a high unmet need that could be addressed by a small molecule, oral therapy to treatment the disease by increasing HbF.
FTX-6058 could face competition from a number of different therapeutic approaches in development for patients with transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia.
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial to evaluate a modified donor T cell therapy to be used in conjunction with hematopoietic stem cell transplant Imara, Inc. is evaluating IMR-687, a PDE9 inhibitor, in a Phase 2b clinical trial in patients with ß-thalassemia. Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., intends to evaluate mitapivat, a PKR activator, in two Phase 3 clinical trials planned for 2021 in patients with non-transfusion dependent and transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia. Forma Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., intends to evaluate FT-4202, a PKR activator, in a Phase 2 clinical trial in non-transfusion and transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia. Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is evaluating IONIS TMPRSS6-LRx, an ASO therapy targeting TMPRSS6, in a Phase 2 clinical trial of non-transfusion dependent β-thalassemia intermedia. Silence Therapeutics is investigating SLN124, an siRNA therapy targeting TMPRSS6, in a Phase 1 healthy volunteer study. Orchard Therapeutics plc is conducting Phase 2 clinical trials of OTL-300, an autologous ex vivo gene therapy for the treatment of transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia. Sangamo, is conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of ST-400, which uses a genome-edited cell therapy approach designed to produce functional RBCs using HbF. CRISPR Therapeutics AG, in collaboration with Vertex, is conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of CTX001, which uses a gene editing approach to upregulate the expression of HbF, in patients with transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia. CRISPR Therapeutics AG and Vertex plan to file a BLA/MAA in Q4 2022.
Government Regulation and Product Approvals
Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, reimbursement, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of biopharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.
Approval and Regulation of Drugs in the United States
In the United States, drug products are regulated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and applicable implementing regulations and guidance. The failure of an applicant to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, including non-clinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval and/or administrative or judicial sanctions.
An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps before the product candidate will be approved by the FDA:
• preclinical testing including laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies, which must be performed in accordance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice, or GLP, regulations and standards;
• submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
• approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, representing each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated;
• performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety, potency and purity of the product candidate for each proposed indication, in accordance with current good clinical practices, or GCP;
30
• preparation and submission to the FDA of a new drug application, or NDA, for a drug product which includes not only the results of the clinical trials, but also, detailed information on the chemistry, manufacture and quality controls for the product candidate and proposed labelling for one or more proposed indication(s);
• review of the product candidate by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable;
• satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities, including those of third parties, at which the product candidate or components thereof are manufactured to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity;
• satisfactory completion of any FDA audits of the non-clinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of clinical data in support of the NDA;
• payment of user fees and securing FDA approval of the NDA to allow marketing of the new drug product; and
• compliance with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, and the potential requirement to conduct any post-approval studies required by the FDA.
Preclinical Studies
Before an applicant begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage, including in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity and long-term toxicity studies may continue after the IND is submitted.
The IND and IRB Processes
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their voluntary informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.
An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved NDA. In support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial, and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine, among other things, whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In these cases, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin.
Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical, nonclinical, and/or chemistry, manufacturing, and controls areas. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol may not be allowed to proceed, while other protocols may be allowed. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, a clinical trial may only
31
resume after the FDA has so notified the sponsor. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the clinical trial can proceed.
A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements, including GCP requirements, of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.
In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements, the protocol, or other requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study.
Suspension or termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur for many reasons, including if the FDA, an IRB, a data safety monitoring board, or we determine that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by us based on factors such as evolving business objectives and/or the competitive environment.
Information about clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website. Similar requirements for posting clinical trial information are present in the European Union (EudraCT) website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ and other countries, as well.
Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use
Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new drug products outside of registrational clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational drugs for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies that do not conflict with registrational trials. FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the drug under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application.
When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product, the FDA will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere with the initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.
There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, sponsor must make its expanded access policy publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial; or 15 days after the drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.
32
Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written clinical trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may also be required after approval.
Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and pharmacodynamics in healthy humans or in patients. During Phase 1 clinical trials, information about the investigational drug product’s PK and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.
Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 clinical trials are well controlled, closely monitored and conducted in a limited patient population.
Phase 3 clinical trials proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 clinical trial that is designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a drug, is referred to as “pivotal.”
In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group.
IND annual reports detailing, among other things, the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA and IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.
Concurrent with clinical trials, companies often complete additional animal studies. They must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
Pediatric Studies
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans that contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.
The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or grant full or partial waivers from the pediatric data
33
requirements. The FDA maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from the requirements of PREA, due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population, and product candidates that have received orphan drug designation are generally exempt from PREA requirements, although orphan-designated drugs intended for treatment of certain molecularly targeted cancer indications are not eligible for the exemption.
Review and Approval of an NDA
In order to obtain approval to market a drug product in the United States, a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides sufficient data establishing the safety and effectiveness of the proposed drug product for its intended indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, purity and potency of the drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA.
The NDA is a vehicle through which applicants formally propose that the FDA approve a new drug product for marketing and sale in the United States for one or more indications. Every new non-biologic drug product candidate must be the subject of an approved NDA before it may be commercialized in the United States. BLAs are submitted for approval of biologic products. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2022 is $3,117,218 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2022 is $369,413. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation, an exception from the program fee when the program does not engage in manufacturing the drug during a particular fiscal year and a waiver for certain small businesses.
The FDA conducts a preliminary review of the application, generally within 60 calendar days of its receipt, and strives to inform the sponsor within 74 days whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept the application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Under certain circumstances, the FDA may determine the application is not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review and will issue a refuse to file letter. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Under that agreement, 90% of applications seeking approval of New Molecular Entities, or NMEs, are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date on which the FDA accepts the application for filing, and 90% of applications for NMEs that have been designated for Priority Review are meant to be reviewed within six months of the filing date. The review process and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, goal date may be extended by the FDA to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant, to address a deficiency identified by the FDA in the original submission, or for other reasons.
Before approving an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is being or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including component manufacturing, finished product manufacturing and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application 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 an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.
The FDA may refer an application for a novel product to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that review, evaluate and provide a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but the FDA considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.
Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review
The FDA has certain programs designed to expedite the development and review of product candidates intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review designation and Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation. Sponsors must request these designations at appropriate points in the development process.
34
The FDA may designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interaction with the FDA, and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete, in a process called rolling review. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information, and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s PDUFA goal for reviewing a Fast Track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process or for the other reasons.
A product may be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. A product that receives Breakthrough Therapy Designation is eligible for all of the features of Fast Track Designation, and additionally is eligible for intensive guidance throughout the development process and a commitment to involve senior staff.
The FDA may designate a product for Priority Review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and 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.
Accelerated Approval Pathway
The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely, based on epidemiologic, therapeutic, pathophysiologic, or other evidence, to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.
For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, efficacy biomarker or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints.
The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. The benefit of accelerated approval derives from the potential to receive approval based on surrogate endpoints sooner than possible for trials with clinical or survival endpoints, rather than deriving from any explicit shortening of the FDA approval timeline, as is the case with Priority Review.
The accelerated approval pathway is contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to initiate expedited proceedings to withdraw approval of the product. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the Agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period.
35
The FDA’s Decision on an NDA
On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider 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. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.
If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, or require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS programs can include medication guides, communication plans for health care professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. The FDA may require a REMS before or after approval if it becomes aware of a serious risk associated with use of the product. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a product. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, changing manufacturing processes and adding labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.
Post-Approval Regulation
A sponsor that obtains regulatory approval for marketing of a new product or a new indication for an existing product, will be subject to numerous post-approval regulatory requirements. The sponsor will be required to report, among other things, certain adverse reactions and manufacturing problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information, comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements, and submit NDA annual reports. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.
The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements 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, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, requirements for post-market studies or clinical trials to assess safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences may include:
• restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;
• fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;
• refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;
• product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or
• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by
36
the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In the United States, health care professionals are generally permitted to prescribe drugs for such uses not described in the drug’s labeling, known as off-label uses, because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose rigorous restrictions on manufacturers’ communications, prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information.
If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the DOJ, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion, and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.
In addition, manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notify the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States.
Section 505(b)(2) NDAs
NDAs for most new drug products are based on two full clinical studies which must contain substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the proposed new product for the proposed use. These applications are submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. The FDA is, however, authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. This type of application allows the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy or literature for a previously approved drug product, also known as a listed drug. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) applies to NDAs for which certain investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe and effective “were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted.”
NDAs filed under Section 505(b)(2) provide an alternate and potentially more expeditious pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous approval is scientifically appropriate, the applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the listed drug has been approved, subject to any regulatory exclusivities or patents for the listed drug (as further described below), as well as for any new indication or use sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.
Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs
In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress 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, known as the reference listed drugs, or RLDs. Abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, the applicant must provide information and data showing that its proposed generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, route of administration, dosage form, strength and conditions of use of the drug. The FDA must also determine whether the generic drug is bioequivalent to the RLD. 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.” Depending on state laws, generic drugs that are found to be therapeutically equivalent may be automatically substituted for prescriptions for the RLD by the dispensing pharmacist, without the intervention of the prescriber.
37
Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. For the purposes of this provision, a new chemical entity, or 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 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.
Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay
Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any relevant patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book in the same manner as an ANDA applicant.
Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:
• the required patent information has not been filed;
• the listed patent has expired;
• the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or
• the listed patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the new product.
A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired (other than method of use patents involving indications for which the applicant is not seeking approval).
If the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) NDA 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 application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV notice. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, the expiration of the patent, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.
As a result, approval of a Section 505(b)(2) NDA or ANDA may be delayed until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, or, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the applicant.
Pediatric Exclusivity
Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of an existing regulatory exclusivity or certain patents. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted.
38
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. A company must seek orphan drug designation before submitting an NDA for the candidate product. If the request is granted, the FDA will disclose the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential use. Orphan drug designation does not shorten the PDUFA goal dates for the regulatory review and approval process, although it does convey certain advantages such as tax benefits and exemption from the PDUFA application fee.
If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for an indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same drug for the same condition for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. Orphan exclusivity does not block the approval of a different product for the same rare disease or condition, nor does it block the approval of the same product for different conditions. If a drug designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.
Orphan drug exclusivity also may not bar approval of another product under certain specified circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the same drug for the same condition is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand.
Patent Term Restoration and Extension
A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application 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 product is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Additionally, 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 approvals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.
Health Care Law and Regulation
Health care providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, patient privacy laws and regulations and other health care laws and regulations that may constrain business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state health care laws and regulations, include the following:
• the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, paying, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal health care program such as Medicare and Medicaid;
• the federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalties laws, which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false, fictitious or fraudulent or knowingly making, using or causing to made or used a false record or statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government;
• the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created additional federal criminal laws that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to
39
execute, a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program or making false statements relating to health care matters;
• HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, which impose obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information;
• the federal false statements statute, which prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services;
• the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, which prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making, or offering or promising to make improper payments to non-U.S. officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or otherwise seeking favorable treatment;
• the federal transparency requirements known as the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act, or the ACA, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, information related to payments and other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members (effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants, and certified-nurse midwives));
• federal government price reporting laws, which require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs;
• federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers; and
• analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to health care items or services that are reimbursed by non-government third-party payors, including private insurers.
Further, some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. Additionally, some state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives in the jurisdiction. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, in California, the California Consumer Protection Act, or CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, 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. While clinical trial data and information governed by HIPAA are currently exempt from the current version of the CCPA, other personal information may be applicable and possible changes to the CCPA may broaden its scope. In addition, a new California ballot initiative, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, was passed in November 2020. Effective starting on January 1, 2023, the CPRA imposes additional obligations on companies covered by the legislation and will significantly modify the CCPA, including by expanding consumers’ rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information. Further data privacy and security laws and regulations in foreign jurisdictions that may be more stringent than those in the United States. (such as the European Union, which adopted the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective in May 2018). Analogous state laws may additionally govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect.
40
Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage and Health Care Reform
In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated health care costs. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.
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 marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.
The containment of health care costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and biologics and other medical products, government control and other changes to the health care system in the United States.
In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for drug products under government health care programs. Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential product candidates are:
• an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;
• expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability;
• expanded manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate for both branded and generic drugs and revising the definition of “average manufacturer price” for calculating and reporting Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drug prices;
• addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected;
• expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program;
• established the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program by requiring manufacturers to provide a 70% point-of-sale-discount off the negotiated price of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and
41
• a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the temporary suspension, a 1% payment reduction will occur beginning April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, and the 2% payment reduction will resume on July 1, 2022. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.
Since enactment of the ACA, there have been and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. Congress may consider other legislation to replace elements of the ACA during the next Congressional session.
On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments as to whether the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration or other efforts, if any, to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will impact our business.
The costs of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. To date, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At a federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs HHS to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry; and directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by states under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates would have been be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug
42
manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. However, on December 29, 2021 CMS rescinded the Most Favored Nations rule. Additionally, on November 30, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. On May 23, 2019, CMS published a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.
At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological 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 addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
Review and Approval of Medicinal Products in the European Union
In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, an applicant will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. 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. Specifically, however, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union, or EU, generally follows the same lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the EU.
Clinical Trial Approval
In April 2014, the EU adopted the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014, which replaced the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on January 31, 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation is directly applicable in all EU Member States meaning no national implementing legislation in each EU Member State is required. It will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial will be required to submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial to a reporting EU Member State through an EU Portal. The submission procedure will be the same irrespective of whether the clinical trial is to be conducted in a single EU Member State or in more than one EU Member State.
43
PRIME Designation in the EU
In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The Priority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation where the marketing authorization application will be made through the centralized procedure. Eligible products must target conditions for which there is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EU or, if there is, the new medicine will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated EMA contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, or Committee for Advanced Therapies, are appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies. Where, during the course of development, a medicine no longer meets the eligibility criteria, support under the PRIME scheme may be withdrawn.
Marketing Authorization
To obtain a marketing authorization for a product under EU regulatory systems, an applicant must submit an MAA either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA, or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the EU. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the EU, applicants have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted (1) a product-specific waiver, (2) a class waiver or (3) a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP.
The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid throughout the EU, and in the additional Member States of the European Economic Area Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines), and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU. We anticipate that the centralized procedure will be mandatory for the product candidates we are developing.
Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a product and for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of an MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, who makes the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, excluding clock stops, but it is possible that the CHMP can revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.
44
The European Commission may grant a so-called “marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances”. Such authorization is intended for products for which the applicant can demonstrate that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use, because the indications for which the product in question is intended are encountered so rarely that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to provide comprehensive evidence, or in the present state of scientific knowledge, comprehensive information cannot be provided, or it would be contrary to generally accepted principles of medical ethics to collect such information. Consequently, marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances may be granted subject to certain specific obligations, which may include the following:
• the applicant must complete an identified program of studies within a time period specified by the competent authority, the results of which form the basis of a reassessment of the benefit/risk profile;
• the medicinal product in question may be supplied on medical prescription only and may in certain cases be administered only under strict medical supervision, possibly in a hospital and in the case of a radiopharmaceutical, by an authorized person; and
• the package leaflet and any medical information must draw the attention of the medical practitioner to the fact that the particulars available concerning the medicinal product in question are as yet inadequate in certain specified respects.
A marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is subject to annual review to reassess the risk-benefit balance in an annual reassessment procedure. Continuation of the authorization is linked to the annual reassessment and a negative assessment could potentially result in the marketing authorization being suspended or revoked. The renewal of a marketing authorization of a medicinal product under exceptional circumstances, however, follows the same rules as a “normal” marketing authorization. Thus, a marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is granted for an initial five years, after which the authorization will become valid indefinitely, unless the EMA decides that safety grounds merit one additional five-year renewal.
The European Commission may also grant a so-called “conditional marketing authorization” prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional marketing authorizations may be granted for product candidates intended for treating, preventing or diagnosing seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if (i) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data post-authorization, (iii) the product fulfills an unmet medical need and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization. A conditional marketing authorization can be converted into a standard centralized marketing authorization (no longer subject to specific obligations) once the marketing authorization holder fulfils the obligations imposed and the complete data confirm that the medicine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks.
The EU medicines rules expressly permit the EU Member States to adopt national legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale, supply or use of any medicinal product containing, consisting of or derived from a specific type of human or animal cell, such as embryonic stem cells. While the products we have in development do not make use of embryonic stem cells, it is possible that the national laws in certain EU Member States may prohibit or restrict us from commercializing our products, even if they have been granted an EU marketing authorization.
Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized marketing authorization procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each EU Member State in which the product is to be marketed. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU Member State prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU Member States who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU Member State cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potential serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all EU Member States.
The mutual recognition procedure similarly is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the EU Member States of the marketing authorization of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other EU Member States. The
45
holder of a national marketing authorization may submit an application to the competent authority of an EU Member State requesting that this authority recognize the marketing authorization delivered by the competent authority of another EU Member State.
Data and Market Exclusivity
In the EU, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 repeats this entitlement for medicinal products authorized in accordance the centralized authorization procedure. Data exclusivity prevents applicants for authorization of generics or biosimilars of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU, during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During an additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted and authorized, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar medicinal product can be placed on the EU market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. There is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.
Periods of Authorization and Renewals
A marketing authorization has an initial validity for five years in principle. 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 EU Member State for a nationally authorized product. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the marketing authorization shall be valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the national competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (in the case of the centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State for a nationally authorized product within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).
Paediatric Studies and Exclusivity
Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the EU, applicants must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved PIP covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, the so-called Pediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Paediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine for children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine for children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population. Before an MAA can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP. If an applicant obtains a marketing authorization in all EU Member States, or a marketing authorization granted in the centralized procedure by the European Commission, and the study results for the pediatric population are included in the product information, even when negative, the medicine is then eligible for an additional six-month period of qualifying patent protection through extension of the term of the Supplementary Protection Certificate or SPC, provided an application for such extension is made at the same time as filing the SPC application for the product, or at any point up to two years before the SPC expires, even where the trial results are negative. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Products receiving orphan designation in the EU can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no “similar medicinal product” may be placed on the market. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is
46
intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU where an agreed pediatric investigation plan for pediatric studies has been complied with. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.
Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as implemented by Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provides that a drug can be designated as an orphan drug by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: (1) that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five (5) in ten thousand (10,000) persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) it is unlikely that the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (3)there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the MAA if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.
However, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the ten-year period with the consent of the marketing authorization holder for the original orphan medicinal product or if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities. Marketing authorization may also be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication if this product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. The period of market exclusivity may, in addition, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.
Regulatory Requirements After a Marketing Authorization has been Obtained
In case an authorization for a medicinal product in the EU is obtained, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include:
• Compliance with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules must be ensured. These rules can impose post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations.
• The manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2003/94/EC, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice. These requirements include compliance with EU cGMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the EU with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the EU.
• The marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the EU. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is prohibited across the EU.
The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the EU Member States, plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.
General Data Protection Regulation
The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, ensuring certain accountability measures are in place and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from
47
violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.
Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom
On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit, and the United Kingdom formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. There was a transition period during which EU pharmaceutical laws continued to apply to the United Kingdom, which expired on December 31, 2020. However, the EU and the United Kingdom have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement, or TCA, which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. At present, Great Britain has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU regulatory framework will continue to apply in Northern Ireland). The regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore currently aligns with EU regulations, however it is possible that these regimes will diverge in future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation.
Furthermore, the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the United Kingdom “implements” and complements the EU’s GDPR, and is effective in the United Kingdom. On June 28, 2021, unless the European Commission adopted an adequacy decision in respect of transfers of personal data to the United Kingdom for a four-year period (until 27 June 2025). Similarly, the United Kingdom has determined that it considers all of the EU and EEA Member States to be adequate for the purposes of data protection. This ensures data flows between the United Kingdom and the EU and EEA remain unaffected.
Pricing Decisions for Approved Products
In the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, EU Member States have the option to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the EU have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage health care expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense.
As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States, and parallel trade, i.e. , arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced EU Member States, can further reduce prices. Special pricing and reimbursement rules may apply to orphan drugs. Inclusion of orphan drugs in reimbursement systems tend to focus on the medical usefulness, need, quality and economic benefits to patients and the healthcare system as for any drug. Acceptance of any medicinal product for reimbursement may come with cost, use and often volume restrictions, which again can vary by country. In addition, results-based rules of reimbursement may apply. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.
The delivery of healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of healthcare and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU Member States have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers.
48
Human Capital Management
Our Mission & Our Employees
We launched with a bold vision to change the course of genetically defined diseases by treating them at their root cause. Our approach to drug discovery generates significant insights into disease biology and allows us to think creatively about the best way to modulate and balance gene expression. Our patient-focused product engine, FulcrumSeek, is designed to systematically identify and validate cellular drug targets that can modulate gene expression to treat the known root cause of genetically defined diseases. We take great pride in being purposeful patient partners who do this work, not just for patients, but with patients.
We view our employees as one of our most valuable assets in serving our mission. We believe that our future success is dependent on attracting, motivating and retaining talented employees. We value the health and wellness of our employees and their families. We aim to create an equitable, inclusive and empowering work environment in which our employees can grow and advance their careers, with the overall goal of developing, expanding and retaining our workforce to support our current pipeline and future business goals. Our success also depends on our ability to attract, engage and retain a diverse group of employees.
Our Behaviors Support Our Mission
We believe success comes when we and our employees align with our mission to improve the lives of patients with genetically-defined rare diseases in areas of high unmet medical need. We are the FULcrew united around these Pillars:
• We take great pride in being Purposeful Patient Partners
• We have a culture of Trust and Transparency
• We are Invested in our People
• We have a Playful spirit and have fun together at work
• We launched Fulcrum with a Bold Scientific Vision and remain committed to this journey
Our Management of Human Capital
To effectively leverage and manage our peoples, we ensure our hiring needs are directly aligned with our strategy, we invest in our people focused on their development and journey while at Fulcrum and most importantly we identify our key talent to ensure we are focused on their retention. We track and report internally on key talent metrics including a focus on overall headcount and by function, hiring metrics, career development (promotions, etc.), turnover trends, and employee demographics (including race, gender, ethnicity). Our senior executives use these metrics to make thoughtful decisions around our people including resource planning, recruitment and retention initiatives and design of compensation and benefits programs. We share these metrics quarterly with the senior executives and board of directors to assist it in fulfilling its duties to (a) establish our enterprise compensation philosophy, (b) administer our compensation plans, (c) evaluate the performance of our executive officers and key employees and (d) review and monitor management development and succession plans.
As of February 24,2022, we had 104 full-time employees, including a total of 41 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 67 employees are engaged in research and development. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.
Our Commitment to Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
We strongly believe in a diverse workplace where all our employees can thrive in an inclusive environment free from discrimination, harassment, bias and prejudice. We aim to treat all individuals with respect and dignity and to provide all our employees with equal opportunity and fair treatment based on merit. By embracing diversity and inclusion, we create an organization committed to working together to develop innovative solutions in support of our mission consistent with our values. We cultivate a culture and environment where different backgrounds and perspectives are not only respected and heard, but embraced and celebrated. Not only is a diverse, equitable and inclusive mindset and culture critical to an engaged and committed workplace, but it is also imperative to understanding and meeting the needs of the patients we seek to help with our medicines.
As we grow and mature, we look forward to establishing programs/metrics that support diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. We will focus on continuing to bring more diversity talent to Fulcrum, creating an inclusive environment by creating awareness (speakers, etc.) and ensuring our underrepresent employees are provided the right career opportunities.
49
As of February 24, 2022, women accounted for approximate 49% of our full-time employees. As of February 24, 2022, our employee records indicate that approximately 32% of our full-time U.S. employees identify as non-white.
Our Compensation & Benefits
Given the highly competitive nature of our industry and the importance of recruitment and retention to our success, we strive to furnish our employees with what we believe is a very competitive and comprehensive total rewards package of compensation, benefits and services. This package includes competitive compensation, including equity compensation, and comprehensive benefits program that provides resources to help employees manage their health and well-being, finances, and life outside of work (promoting flexibility), including health insurance and dental care, vision insurance, disability insurance, paid sick leave, a 401(k) plan, paid time off (inclusive of vacation, holidays, focus days) and employee assistance services.
Our Efforts to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic
Employee safety and wellbeing is of paramount importance to us in any year and was of particular focus in 2021 in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the pandemic, we have supported our employees to curb the COVID-19 pandemic through safety and communication efforts and investments, which include:
• Creating a COVID-19 task force responsible for establishing COVID-19, safety protocols and regularly communicating updates to all employees;
• Decreasing density and increasing physical distancing in our facilities for employees working onsite using scheduling adjustments and flexibility;
• Adhering to robust cleaning protocols;
• Providing on site testing ;
• Requiring and providing masks to all onsite employees;
• Proactively creating rigorous procedures to address actual and suspected COVID-19 cases and potential exposure; and
• Being nimble reacting real time with a sense of urgency to anything that came our way to support our employees
Additionally, from time to time we have instituted additional programs during the pandemic to support our employees. We leveraged our weekly company meeting to keep our employees connected on what was happening during the pandemic (managing expectations and listening to their needs) as well as making employee connections (fun breakouts in the spirit of building relationships/connections). We also provided a subsidy for home office set-up, flexibility to figure out work location/hours, and enhanced our employee assistance services (comprehensive mental health, work-life and management services).
Corporate Information
Our principal executive office is located at 26 Landsdowne Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, and our telephone number is 617-651-8851. Our internet website address is www.fulcrumtx.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
50
Item 1A. Ris k Factors.
Our future operating results could differ materially from the results described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K due to the risks and uncertainties described below. You should consider carefully the following information about risks below in evaluating our business. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial conditions, results of operations and future growth prospects would likely be materially and adversely affected. In these circumstances, the market price of our common stock would likely decline. In addition, we cannot assure investors that our assumptions and expectations will prove to be correct. Important factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated or implied by forward-looking statements. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” on page i of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of some of the forward-looking statements that are qualified by these risk factors. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include those factors discussed below.
Risks Related to our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital
We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses over the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability.
Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net loss was $80.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and $70.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $302.5 million. To date, we have funded our operations primarily from the sale of shares of our common stock in public offerings, a private placement, and in “at-the-market” offerings, or the ATM Offering, through issuances of convertible preferred stock, and from upfront payments received under our collaboration and license agreements. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including clinical trials and preclinical studies. We are still in the early stages of development of our product candidates, and we have not completed development of any product candidates. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:
• continue our clinical development of losmapimod and FTX-6058;
• continue our ongoing preclinical studies;
• advance clinical-stage product candidates into later stage trials, such as a Phase 3 clinical trial of losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD;
• pursue the discovery of drug targets for other genetically-defined rare diseases and the subsequent development of any resulting product candidates;
• seek regulatory approvals for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials;
• scale up our manufacturing processes and capabilities, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, to support our clinical trials of our product candidates and commercialization of any of our product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval;
• establish a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure to commercialize any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval;
• acquire or in-license products, product candidates, technologies and/or data referencing rights;
• make any milestone payments to affiliates of GSK, under our right of reference and license agreement with GSK upon the achievement of specified clinical or regulatory milestones;
• maintain, expand, enforce, defend and protect our intellectual property;
• hire additional clinical, quality control and scientific personnel; and
• add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our product development and planned future commercialization efforts and our operations as a public company.
51
To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing, and eventually commercializing, a product or products that generate significant revenue. The ability to achieve this success will require us to be effective in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Our expenses will increase if, among other things:
• we are required by the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities to perform trials or studies in addition to, or different than, those expected;
• there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates; or
• there are any third-party challenges to our intellectual property or we need to defend against any intellectual property-related claim.
Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our pipeline of product candidates or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.
We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.
We expect to devote substantial financial resources to our ongoing and planned activities, particularly as we continue our ongoing and planned clinical trials of losmapimod and FTX-6058, continue research and development and initiate additional clinical trials of, and seek regulatory approval for, these and other product candidates. We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance our preclinical activities and clinical trials. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution. Furthermore, we will incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.
Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:
• the progress, costs and results of our ongoing clinical trials of losmapimod and FTX-6058;
• additional planned clinical trials, such as our planned Phase 1b clinical trial of FTX-6058 in select hemoglobinopathies, including ß-thalassemia, and plans for a Phase 3 clinical trial of losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD;
• the scope, progress, costs and results of discovery research, preclinical development, laboratory testing and clinical trials for our current product candidates in additional indications or for any future product candidates that we may pursue;
• the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on our business and operations;
• the number of and development requirements for other product candidates that we pursue;
• the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our product candidates;
• our ability to enter into contract manufacturing arrangements for supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, and manufacture of our product candidates and the terms of such arrangements;
• the success of our collaborations with Acceleron and MyoKardia;
• our ability to establish and maintain additional strategic collaborations, licensing or other arrangements and the financial terms of such arrangements;
• the payment or receipt of milestones, royalties and other collaboration-based revenues, if any;
• the costs and timing of future commercialization activities, including product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution, for any of our product candidates for which we may receive marketing approval;
• the amount and timing of revenue, if any, received from commercial sales of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval;
52
• the costs and timing of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property and proprietary rights and defending any intellectual property-related claims; and
• the extent to which we acquire or in-license other products, product candidates, technologies or data referencing rights.
As of December 31, 2021, we had cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities of approximately $218.2 million. We believe that our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities as of December 31, 2021 will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into 2024. However, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us. As a result, we could deplete our capital resources sooner than we currently expect.
Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Commercial revenues, if any, will not be derived unless and until we can achieve sales of products, which we do not anticipate for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate preclinical studies, clinical trials or other development activities for one or more of our product candidates or discovery stage programs or delay, limit, reduce or terminate our establishment of sales and marketing capabilities or other activities that may be necessary to commercialize our product candidates.
Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.
Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our stockholders’ rights as common stockholders. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, selling or licensing our assets, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.
If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.
Our limited operating history may make it difficult for stockholders to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.
We commenced activities in 2015 and are an early-stage company. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, establishing our intellectual property, building our discovery platform, identifying drug targets and potential product candidates, in-licensing assets, producing drug substance and drug product material for use in clinical trials and conducting preclinical studies and conducting clinical trials. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully develop any product candidate, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions stockholders make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing products.
In addition, as our business grows, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.
53
We expect our financial condition and operating results to fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, stockholders should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has and may continue to affect our ability to initiate and complete current or future preclinical studies or clinical trials, disrupt regulatory activities or have other adverse effects on our business and operations. In addition, this pandemic may continue to adversely impact economies worldwide, which could result in adverse effects on our business and operations.
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we and our CMOs and contract research organizations, or CROs, may face disruptions that may affect our ability to initiate and complete preclinical studies or clinical trials, including disruptions in procuring items that are essential for our research and development activities, including, for example, raw materials and API used in the manufacturing of our product candidates, and laboratory supplies for our current and future preclinical studies and clinical trials, in each case, for which there may be shortages because of ongoing efforts to address the pandemic. We and our CMOs and CROs, may face disruptions related to our planned and ongoing clinical trials or future clinical trials arising from delays in IND-enabling studies, manufacturing disruptions, and the ability to obtain necessary institutional review board or other necessary site approvals, as well as enrollment and other delays at clinical trial sites. For example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the clinical trial sites for our ReDUX4 clinical trial temporarily postponed trial-related activities, impacting our clinical trial execution plans. We may also face difficulties recruiting or retaining patients for our planned and ongoing clinical trials if patients are affected by the virus or are fearful of visiting or traveling to clinical trial sites because of the pandemic. In addition, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, three vaccines for COVID-19 have received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and one of those later received marketing approval. Additional vaccines may be authorized or approved in the future. The resultant demand for vaccines and potential for manufacturing facilities and materials to be commandeered under the Defense Production Act of 1950, or equivalent foreign legislation, may make it more difficult to obtain materials or manufacturing slots for the products needed for our clinical trials, which could lead to further delays in these trials. The response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may redirect resources with respect to regulatory and intellectual property matters in a way that would adversely impact our ability to progress regulatory approvals and protect our intellectual property. In addition, we may face impediments to regulatory meetings and approvals due to measures intended to limit in-person interactions.
Additionally, the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts resulted in a temporary reduction in workforce presence at our Cambridge research facility. While we increased workforce presence at our facilities starting in the second quarter of 2020, not all employees have returned to our facility and we cannot be certain that we will not be required to close our facilities in the future as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. A closure of our facility may substantially impact our discovery and translational activities and may delay the experimentation needed to identify novel drug targets, prosecute such targets, identify development candidates for such targets and identify biomarkers that inform the potential clinical development paths for such targets. Moreover, discovery and implementation of clinical biomarker assays for ongoing clinical trials may be delayed. Furthermore, any negative impact that the ongoing pandemic has on the ability of our CROs to deliver data sets and execute on experimentation could cause substantial delays for our discovery activities and materially impact our ability to fuel our pipeline with new product candidates.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has already caused significant disruptions in the financial markets, and may continue to cause such disruptions, which could impact our ability to raise additional funds through public offerings and may also impact the volatility of our stock price and trading in our stock. Moreover, it is possible the pandemic will continue to significantly impact economies worldwide, which could result in adverse effects on our business and operations. We cannot be certain what the overall impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will be on our business. The extent of the impact of COVID-19 on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain, including as a result of new information that may emerge concerning COVID-19 or any variant strains of the virus and actions to be taken to contain or mitigate the impact of COVID-19, including the supply, distribution and effectiveness of vaccines.
Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation may adversely affect our business and financial condition.
The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application), including with respect to net operating losses and research and development tax credits, could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our
54
business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.
Our ability to use our net operating losses and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.
As of December 31, 2021, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $245.8 million and $244.0 million, respectively, which begin to expire in 2036. Approximately $214.8 million of the federal net operating losses can be carried forward indefinitely. As of December 31, 2021, we also had federal orphan drug credits of $6.7 million, which begin to expire in 2040. As of December 31, 2021, we also had federal and state research and development tax credit carryforwards of $6.1 million and $3.3 million, respectively, which begin to expire in 2035 and 2030, respectively. These net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities.
In general, under Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, and corresponding provisions of state law, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating losses and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset future taxable income. We have not conducted a study to assess whether any such ownership changes have occurred. We may have experienced such ownership changes in the past and may experience such ownership changes in the future (which may be outside our control). As a result, if, and to the extent that, we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change net operating losses and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset such taxable income may be subject to limitations. Our net operating losses or credits may also be impaired under state law.
We have a history of cumulative losses and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses in the foreseeable future; thus, we do not know whether or when we will generate taxable income necessary to utilize our net operating losses or research and development tax credit carryforwards.
Risks Related to the Discovery and Development of our Product Candidates
We are early in our development efforts, and we only have two product candidates in clinical trials. If we are unable to commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.
We are early in our development efforts, and we have advanced only two product candidates into clinical trials, losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD, and FTX-6058 for the treatment of SCD and select hemoglobinopathies. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in our proprietary product engine to identify and validate cellular drug targets that can potentially modulate gene expression to address the root cause of genetically-defined rare diseases. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:
• successfully completing preclinical studies and clinical trials;
• allowance by the FDA or other regulatory agencies of the INDs, clinical trial applications, or CTAs, or other regulatory filings for losmapimod, FTX-6058 and future product candidates;
• expanding and maintaining a workforce of experienced scientists and others to continue to develop our product candidates;
• applying for and receiving marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;
• obtaining and maintaining intellectual property protection and regulatory exclusivity for our product candidates;
• making arrangements with third-party manufacturers for, or establishing, commercial manufacturing capabilities;
• establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and successfully launching commercial sales of the products, if and when approved, whether alone or in collaboration with others;
• acceptance of the products, if and when approved, by patients, the medical community and third-party payors;
• effectively competing with other therapies;
• obtaining and maintaining coverage, adequate pricing and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors;
• maintaining, enforcing, defending and protecting our rights in our intellectual property portfolio;
• not infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating others’ intellectual property or proprietary rights; and
55
• maintaining a continued acceptable safety profile of the products following receipt of any regulatory approvals.
If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.
We may not be successful in our efforts to use our product engine to build a pipeline of product candidates.
A key element of our strategy is to use our proprietary product engine to identify and validate cellular drug targets that can potentially modulate gene expression to address the root cause of genetically-defined rare diseases, with an initial focus on identifying small molecules specific to the identified cellular target. Even if we are successful in identifying drug targets and potential product candidates, such candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. Identifying, developing, obtaining regulatory approval for and commercializing additional product candidates will require substantial additional funding and is prone to the risks of failure inherent in product development. We cannot provide stockholders any assurance that we will be able to successfully identify additional product candidates with our product engine, including as a result of our collaborations with Acceleron and MyoKardia, advance any additional product candidates through the development process or successfully commercialize any such additional product candidates. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. As a result of these factors, it is difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our proprietary product engine or any of our research or development programs will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. If we do not successfully identify, develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize product candidates based upon our technological approach, we will not be able to generate product revenues.
Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of future results. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.
We have two product candidates in clinical development. The risk of failure for each of our product candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. We have not yet completed a pivotal clinical trial of any product candidate. Clinical trials may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe for humans and effective for indicated uses. Even if the clinical trials are successful, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application.
Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our planned INDs and other regulatory filings in the United States and abroad. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or other regulatory agencies will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of our current or future product candidates. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or similar applications for our preclinical programs on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or similar applications will result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin. Furthermore, product candidates are subject to continued preclinical safety studies, which may be conducted concurrent with our clinical testing. The outcomes of these safety studies may delay the launch of or enrollment in future clinical trials and could impact our ability to continue to conduct our clinical trials.
Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, or at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, which may result from a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to, flaws in study design, dose selection issues, placebo effects, patient enrollment criteria and failure to demonstrate favorable safety or efficacy traits. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and preliminary or interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. For example, our product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials. A lack of clinical benefit may be due to insufficient dosing or for other reasons. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their
56
product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Furthermore, the failure of any of our product candidates to demonstrate safety and efficacy in any clinical trial could negatively impact the perception of our other product candidates and/or cause the FDA or other regulatory authorities to require additional testing before approving any of our product candidates.
As described in Item 1 “Business—Licenses and Collaborations--Right of Reference and License Agreement with GlaxoSmithKline” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have entered into a right of reference and license agreement, as amended, with affiliates of GSK. Although losmapimod was originally evaluated by GSK in nearly 3,600 subjects, GSK did not evaluate losmapimod in FSHD or in any other muscular dystrophy, and most of the subjects in these trials were given a dose that was lower than our planned dosage of 15 mg of losmapimod twice per day. Accordingly, the safety data generated from GSK’s clinical trials of losmapimod may not be predictive or indicative of the results of our clinical trials. Similarly, while we believe the safety data from GSK’s clinical trials may, in part, support the safety database for losmapimod, GSK evaluated a limited number of subjects at a dose of 15 mg twice daily.
We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:
• regulators or institutional review boards, or IRBs, may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;
• we may experience delays in reaching, or fail to reach, agreement on acceptable clinical trial contracts or clinical trial protocols with prospective trial sites;
• regulators may decide the design of our clinical trials is flawed, for example if our trial protocol does not evaluate treatment effects in trial subjects for a sufficient length of time;
• clinical trials of our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon product development programs;
• we may be unable to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful, or, if we seek accelerated approval, biomarker efficacy endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider likely to predict clinical benefit;
• preclinical testing may produce results based on which we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional preclinical studies before we proceed with certain clinical trials, limit the scope of our clinical trials, halt ongoing clinical trials or abandon product development programs;
• the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate or participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate;
• our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all;
• we may decide, or regulators or IRBs may require us, to suspend or terminate clinical trials of our product candidates for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;
• regulators or IRBs may require us to perform additional or unanticipated clinical trials to obtain approval or we may be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements to maintain regulatory approval;
• regulators may revise the requirements for approving our product candidates, or such requirements may not be as we anticipate;
• the cost of clinical trials of our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate;
• the supply or quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate;
57
• our product candidates may have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, causing us or our investigators, regulators or IRBs to suspend or terminate the trials;
• unforeseen global instability, including political instability or instability from an outbreak of pandemic or contagious disease, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, in or around the countries in which we conduct our clinical trials, could delay the commencement or rate of completion of our clinical trials; and
• regulators may withdraw their approval of a product or impose restrictions on its distribution, such as in the form of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS.
For example, in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the clinical trial sites for our ReDUX4 trial temporarily postponed trial-related activities, impacting our clinical trial execution plans, and we cannot be certain that we will not face other postponements or similar difficulties in the future.
If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:
• be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates;
• not obtain marketing approval at all;
• obtain approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired;
• obtain approval with labeling or a REMS that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings;
• be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements; or
• have the product removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval.
Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or in obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. We may also determine to change the design or protocol of one or more of our clinical trials, including to add additional patients or arms, which could result in increased costs and expenses and/or delays. Significant preclinical study or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.
Because we are developing some of our product candidates for the treatment of diseases in which there is limited clinical experience and, in some cases, using new endpoints or methodologies, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may not consider the endpoints of our clinical trials to predict or provide clinically meaningful results.
There are currently no therapies approved to treat FSHD, and there may be no therapies approved to treat the underlying causes of diseases that we attempt to address or may address in the future. As a result, the design and conduct of a clinical trial or trials of the product candidates for the treatment of these diseases may take longer, be more costly or be less effective as part of the novelty of development in these diseases. In some cases, we may use new or novel endpoints or methodologies, such as RWS , which has not been proven for registration to our knowledge. The FDA or other regulatory authorities have indicated support for RWS as a primary endpoint with additional supportive data but may not consider the endpoints of our clinical trial(s) to provide clinically meaningful results , even where we believe such results are clinically meaningful. For example, we have met with regulators to discuss the design of our future clinical trial and registration strategy for losmapimod for FSHD, including our proposed endpoints for REACH, but the regulators may require additional data to support the RWS functional primary endpoint for full approval.
Even if the FDA does find our primary endpoint to be sufficiently validated and clinically meaningful, we may not achieve the pre-specified endpoint to a magnitude, duration or degree of statistical significance in any pivotal or other clinical trials we may conduct for our product candidates. Further, even if we do meet the primary endpoint, our trials may produce results that are unpredictable or inconsistent with the results of the other, more traditional efficacy endpoints in the trials. The FDA also could ascribe substantial weight to other efficacy endpoints when interpreting the clinical trial data, such that even if we achieve statistically significant results on our primary endpoint, the FDA may regard the failure to show a statistically significant effect on our secondary efficacy endpoints as raising questions about the efficacy of the drug. The FDA also weighs the benefits of a product against its risks and the FDA may view the efficacy results in the context of safety as not being supportive of approval. Other regulatory authorities in Europe and other countries may make similar findings with respect to these endpoints.
58
If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.
Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials for our product candidates is critical to our success. Successful and timely completion of clinical trials will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Because of our primary focus on genetically-defined rare diseases, we may have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of eligible patients.
Patient enrollment is affected by a variety of other factors, including:
• the prevalence and severity of the disease under investigation;
• the eligibility criteria for the trial in question;
• the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under trial;
• the requirements of the trial protocols, including invasive procedures such as muscle biopsies;
• the availability of existing treatments for the indications for which we are conducting clinical trials;
• the ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience;
• the efforts to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical trials;
• the patient referral practices of physicians;
• the ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment;
• the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients;
• the conduct of clinical trials by competitors for product candidates that treat the same indications as our product candidates;
• the ability to identify specific patient populations for biomarker-defined trial cohort(s); and
• the cost to, or lack of adequate compensation for, prospective patients.
Our inability to locate and enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays, could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether and could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals.
Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.
If serious adverse events or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our development of some of our product candidates.
If our product candidates are associated with serious adverse events or undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected in clinical trials or preclinical testing, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. In pharmaceutical development, many compounds that initially show promise in early-stage or clinical testing are later found to cause side effects that delay or prevent further development of the compound.
Additionally, if results of our clinical trials reveal unacceptable side effects, we, the FDA or the IRBs at the institutions in which our studies are conducted could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete any of our clinical trials. If we elect or are forced to suspend or terminate any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidate will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from such product candidate will be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences could materially harm our business.
59
If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we, or others, later discover that the drug is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, our ability to market the drug could be compromised.
Clinical trials of our product candidates are conducted in carefully defined subsets of patients who have agreed to enter into clinical trials. Consequently, it is possible that our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any, or alternatively fail to identify undesirable side effects. If one or more of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we, or others, later discover that they are less effective than previously believed, or cause undesirable side effects, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:
• withdrawal or limitation by regulatory authorities of approvals of such product;
• seizure of the product by regulatory authorities;
• recall of the product;
• restrictions on the marketing of the product or the manufacturing process for any component thereof;
• requirement by regulatory authorities of additional warnings on the label, such as a “black box” warning or contraindication;
• requirement that we implement a REMS or create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients;
• commitment to expensive post-marketing studies as a prerequisite of approval by regulatory authorities of such product;
• the product may become less competitive;
• initiation of regulatory investigations and government enforcement actions;
• initiation of legal action against us to hold us liable for harm caused to patients; and
• harm to our reputation and resulting harm to physician or patient acceptance of our products.
Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of a particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.
Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we are focusing our research and development efforts on rare neuromuscular, muscular, hematologic and central nervous system disorders. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Failure to allocate resources or capitalize on strategies in a successful manner will have an adverse impact on our business.
We are conducting clinical trials of losmapimod in patients with FSHD in Europe and Canada and currently plan to conduct additional clinical trials for our product candidates at sites outside the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations.
We are currently conducting an open label extension of our Phase 2b clinical trial and of our Phase 2 open label clinical trial of losmapimod in patients with FSHD in Europe and Canada. We may also conduct additional clinical trials outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and be performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles. The trial population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will depend on its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including GCP, and FDA’s ability to validate the data. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we
60
conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and could delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates.
Risks Related to the Commercialization of our Product Candidates
Even if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, and the market opportunity for any of our product candidates, if approved, may be smaller than we estimate.
If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may not be successful. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:
• the efficacy and potential advantages of our product candidates compared to the advantages and relative risks of alternative treatments;
• the effectiveness of sales and marketing efforts;
• the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments, including any similar generic treatments;
• our ability to offer our products, if approved, for sale at competitive prices;
• the clinical indications for which the product is approved;
• the convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;
• the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;
• the strength of marketing and distribution support;
• the timing of market introduction of competitive products;
• the availability of third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement, and patients’ willingness to pay out of pocket for required co-payments or in the absence of third-party coverage or adequate reimbursement;
• the prevalence and severity of any side effects; and
• any restrictions on the use of our products, if approved, together with other medications.
Our assessment of the potential market opportunity for our product candidates is based on industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties, one of which we commissioned. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. While we believe these industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies are reliable, we have not independently verified such data. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities for our product candidates include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies, which may be based on a small sample size and fail to accurately reflect market opportunities. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions. If any of our assumptions or estimates, or these publications, research, surveys or studies prove to be inaccurate, then the actual market for any of our product candidates may be smaller than we expect, and as a result our product revenue may be limited and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability.
If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into sales, marketing and distribution agreements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if and when they are approved.
We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we have obtained marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales, marketing and distribution organization, either ourselves or through collaborations or other arrangements with third parties.
61
In the future, we expect to build a focused, specialty sales and marketing infrastructure to market some of our product candidates in the United States, if and when they are approved. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. These efforts may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.
Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include:
• our inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of effective sales, marketing, coverage or reimbursement, customer service, medical affairs and other support personnel;
• the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any future products;
• the inability of reimbursement professionals to negotiate arrangements for formulary access, reimbursement and other acceptance by payors;
• the inability to price our products at a sufficient price point to ensure an adequate and attractive level of profitability;
• restricted or closed distribution channels that make it difficult to distribute our products to segments of the patient population;
• the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and
• unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization.
If we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services, our product revenues and our profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are acceptable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.
We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.
The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates, and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of many of the disease indications for which we are developing our product candidates. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.
For example, we are aware of several product candidates in clinical development that could be competitive with product candidates that we may successfully develop and commercialize. bluebird, Aruvant Sciences, Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Imara, Inc., Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Forma Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Pfizer, Inc., CSL Behring, Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics Inc., or Sangamo (in collaboration with Bioverativ Inc.) and CRISPR Therapeutics AG (in collaboration with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) are developing therapeutic approaches for patients with SCD. Acceleron (in collaboration with Celgene), Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Silence Therapeutics plcImara Inc., Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Forma Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Orchard Therapeutics plc, Sangamo (in collaboration with
62
Bioverativ, Inc.) and CRISPR Therapeutics AG (in collaboration with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) are developing therapeutic approaches for patients with ß-thalassemia.
Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. If our product candidates achieve marketing approval, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products.
Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do.
Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.
If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Because certain of the target patient populations of our product candidates are small, and the addressable patient population even smaller, we must be able to successfully identify patients and capture a significant market share to achieve profitability and growth.
We primarily focus our research and product development on treatments for genetically-defined rare diseases. Given the small number of patients who have the rare diseases that we are targeting, it is critical to our ability to grow and become profitable that we continue to successfully identify patients with these rare diseases. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations or market research that we conducted, and may prove to be incorrect or contain errors. New studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The effort to identify patients with diseases we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations for many of the indications we are evaluating are very small, we may never achieve profitability despite obtaining such significant market share.
The target patient populations for some of the indications we are evaluating are relatively small, and there is currently no standard of care treatment directed at some of our target indications, such as FSHD. As a result, the pricing and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved, is uncertain, but must be adequate to support commercial infrastructure. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell our product candidates will be adversely affected.
We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on CMOs to manufacture our product candidates. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements as expected or if such organizations do not meet our supply requirements, development and/or commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed.
We do not have any manufacturing facilities and rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to manufacture clinical supplies of our product candidates and we expect to rely on third parties to manufacture commercial supplies of our products, if and when approved for marketing by applicable regulatory authorities, as well as for packaging, sterilization, storage, distribution and other production logistics. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on the terms or timeline we expect, development and/or commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed.
If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or manufacture our product candidates in accordance with regulatory requirements, if there are disagreements between us and such parties or if such parties are unable to expand capacities to support commercialization of any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, we may not be able to fulfill, or may be delayed in producing sufficient product candidates to
63
meet, our supply requirements, or we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we may not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with a different manufacturer, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In either scenario, our clinical trial supply could be delayed significantly as we establish alternative supply sources. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all.
In addition, if we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget. Furthermore, a manufacturer may possess technology related to the manufacture of our product candidate that such manufacturer owns independently. This would increase our reliance on such manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another manufacturer manufacture our product candidates. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials. These facilities may also be affected by natural disasters, such as floods or fire, as well as public health issues (for example, an outbreak of a contagious disease such as COVID-19), or such facilities could face manufacturing issues, such as contamination or regulatory concerns following a regulatory inspection of such facility.
Our third-party manufacturers will be subject to inspection and approval by the FDA before we can commence the manufacture and sale of any of our product candidates, and thereafter subject to FDA inspection from time to time. Failure by our third-party manufacturers to pass such inspections and otherwise satisfactorily complete the FDA approval regimen with respect to our product candidates may result in regulatory actions such as the issuance of FDA Form 483 notices of observations, warning letters or injunctions or the loss of operating licenses.
We or our third-party manufacturers may also encounter shortages in the raw materials or API necessary to produce our product candidates in the quantities needed for our clinical trials or, if our product candidates are approved, in sufficient quantities for commercialization or to meet an increase in demand, as a result of capacity constraints or delays or disruptions in the market for the raw materials or API, including shortages caused by the purchase of such raw materials or API by our competitors or others. The failure of us or our third-party manufacturers to obtain the raw materials or API necessary to manufacture sufficient quantities of our product candidates, may have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.
We do not have any manufacturing facilities. Although we believe we have obtained sufficient losmapimod tablets from GSK to complete our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trials of losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD, we cannot be sure we have correctly estimated our drug product and API requirements or that such drug product or API will not expire before we want to use it. We have also engaged CMOs to prepare our own API and to manufacture losmapimod tablets. Although we believe we have produced sufficient losmapimod tablets to complete our planned Phase 3 registrational trial, we cannot be sure we have correctly estimated our drug product and API requirements or that such drug product or API will not expire before we want to use it. In addition, although we believe we have obtained sufficient quantities of FTX-6058 from a CMO for the completion of our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial, our ongoing Phase 1b clinical trial for SCD, and our planned Phase 1b trial in non-SCD hemoglobinopathies, including ß-thalassemia, we cannot be sure we have correctly estimated our drug product requirements, which could delay, prevent or impair our development efforts.
We expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture of FTX-6058 for any future clinical trials and for the manufacture of any future product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing. We also expect to rely on third-party manufacturers or third-party collaborators for the manufacture of commercial supply of any other product candidates for which we or our collaborators obtain marketing approval. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.
Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us.
Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a source for bulk drug
64
substance. If any of our future contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. Although we believe that there are several potential alternative manufacturers who could manufacture our product candidates, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement.
Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or products may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.
Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidates, the products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage or reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which could harm our business.
The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. See the section entitled “Business — Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage and Health Care Reform”.
Our ability to commercialize any product candidates successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for any product that we commercialize and, even if these are available, the level of reimbursement may not be satisfactory. Reimbursement may affect the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our products may be difficult. We may be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:
▪ a covered benefit under its health plan;
▪ safe, effective and medically necessary;
▪ appropriate for the specific patient;
▪ cost-effective; and
▪ neither experimental nor investigational.
There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate
65
reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.
There can be no assurance that our product candidates, even if they are approved for sale in the United States or in other countries, will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication or cost-effective by third-party payors, or that coverage and an adequate level of reimbursement will be available or that third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably.
Our future growth depends, in part, on our ability to penetrate foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties that, if they materialize, could harm our business.
Our future profitability will depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our product candidates in markets outside of the United States and the European Union. If we commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets, we will be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:
• economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular economies and markets;
• the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting and legal requirements, many of which vary between countries;
• different medical practices and customs in foreign countries affecting acceptance in the marketplace;
• tariffs and trade barriers, as well as other governmental controls and trade restrictions;
• other trade protection measures, import or export licensing requirements or other restrictive actions by U.S. or foreign governments;
• longer accounts receivable collection times;
• longer lead times for shipping;
• compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad;
• workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is common;
• language barriers for technical training;
• reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries, and related prevalence of generic alternatives to therapeutics;
• foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations and currency controls;
• differing foreign reimbursement landscapes;
• uncertain and potentially inadequate reimbursement of our products; and
• the interpretation of contractual provisions governed by foreign laws in the event of a contract dispute.
If risks related to any of these uncertainties materializes, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Clinical trial and product liability lawsuits against us could divert our resources and could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.
We face an inherent risk of clinical trial and product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials, and we will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. While we currently have no products that have been approved for commercial sale, the current and future use of product candidates by us in clinical trials, and the sale of any approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients that use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling such products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:
• decreased demand for any product candidates or products that we may develop;
• injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention;
• withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
66
• significant costs to defend any related litigation;
• substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
• loss of revenue;
• reduced resources of our management to pursue our business strategy; and
• the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop.
We currently hold $10 million in clinical trial liability insurance coverage in the aggregate, with a per incident limit of $10 million, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials or if we commence commercialization of our product candidates. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful clinical trial or product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.
Risks Related to our Dependence on Third Parties
We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, which may harm our business.
We currently rely on third-party contract CROs to conduct our ongoing clinical trials of losmapimod and FTX-6058. We plan to rely on third-party CROs or third-party research collaboratives to conduct any future clinical trials. We do not plan to independently conduct clinical trials of our other product candidates. We expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct our clinical trials. These agreements might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, our product development activities might be delayed.
Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities.
If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates. Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors.
We also rely, and expect to continue to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.
We have entered into, and may in the future enter into, collaborations with third parties for the discovery, development or commercialization of our product candidates. If our collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates and our business could be adversely affected.
We have collaboration and license agreements with Acceleron (with a targeted indication within the pulmonary disease space) and MyoKardia (for certain genetically defined cardiomyopathies). See “Business—License Agreements and Collaborations”. While we have retained all rights to and are developing on our own our current product candidates, we may in the future enter into development, distribution or marketing arrangements with third parties with respect to our other existing or future product candidates. Our likely collaborators for any such sales, marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. If we enter into any such arrangements with any third parties in the future, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.
67
Collaborations that we enter into, including our collaborations with Acceleron and MyoKardia, may not be successful, and any success will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of such collaborators. Collaborations pose a number of risks, including the following:
• collaborators have significant discretion in determining the amount and timing of efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations;
• collaborators may not perform their obligations as expected;
• collaborators may not pursue development of our product candidates or may elect not to continue or renew development programs based on results of clinical trials or other studies, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding, or external factors, such as an acquisition, that divert resources or create competing priorities;
• collaborators may not pursue commercialization of any product candidates that achieve regulatory approval or may elect not to continue or renew commercialization programs based on results of clinical trials or other studies, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding, or external factors, such as an acquisition, that may divert resources or create competing priorities;
• collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;
• we may not have access to, or may be restricted from disclosing, certain information regarding product candidates being developed or commercialized under a collaboration and, consequently, may have limited ability to inform our stockholders about the status of such product candidates on a discretionary basis;
• collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our product candidates and products if the collaborators believe that the competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours;
• product candidates discovered in collaboration with us may be viewed by our collaborators as competitive with their own product candidates or products, which may cause collaborators to cease to devote resources to the commercialization of our product candidates;
• a collaborator may fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the development, manufacture, distribution or marketing of a product candidate or product;
• a collaborator with marketing and distribution rights to one or more of our product candidates that achieve regulatory approval may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of such product or products;
• disagreements with collaborators, including disagreements over intellectual property or proprietary rights, contract interpretation or the preferred course of development, might cause delays or terminations of the research, development or commercialization of product candidates, might lead to additional responsibilities for us with respect to product candidates, or might result in litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time-consuming and expensive;
• collaborators may not properly obtain, maintain, enforce, defend or protect our intellectual property or proprietary rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to potentially lead to disputes or legal proceedings that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation;
• disputes may arise with respect to the ownership of intellectual property developed pursuant to our collaborations;
• collaborators may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate the intellectual property or proprietary rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability; and
• collaborations may be terminated for the convenience of the collaborator, and, if terminated, we could be required to raise additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates.
68
Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all. If any collaborations that we enter into do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described herein also apply to the activities of our collaborators.
Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if a collaborator of ours is involved in a business combination, the collaborator might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us. For example, in November 2020, subsequent to our entering into the MyoKardia collaboration agreement, MyoKardia was acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company could determine to reprioritize MyoKardia’s development programs such that it ceases to diligently pursue the development of our programs and/or cause the agreement between MyoKardia and us to terminate. Additionally, in November 2021, subsequent to our entering into the Acceleron collaboration agreement, Acceleron was acquired by Merck & Co., Inc. Merck & Co., Inc. could determine to reprioritize Acceleron's development programs such that it ceases to diligently pursue the development of our programs and/or cause the agreement between Acceleron and us to terminate. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected.
If we are not able to establish or maintain collaborations, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans and our business could be adversely affected.
For some of our product candidates, we may decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates. For example, in December 2019, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Acceleron to identify biological targets to modulate specific pathways associated with a targeted indication within the pulmonary disease space, and in July 2020, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with MyoKardia to identify and validate potential biological targets for the potential treatment of certain genetically defined cardiomyopathies. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and a number of more established companies may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate.
We may also be restricted under existing or future license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. For example, we are restricted by GSK’s right of first negotiation under our current license agreement with them. We are also restricted under our collaboration with Acceleron from, directly or indirectly, researching, developing, manufacturing, commercializing, using or otherwise exploiting any compound or product for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of a targeted indication within the pulmonary disease space, other than for Acceleron, while we are performing the research activities pursuant to the research plan and for a specified period thereafter. Additionally, we are restricted under our collaboration with Acceleron from researching, developing, manufacturing, commercializing, using, or otherwise exploiting any compound or product for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of a targeted indication within the pulmonary disease space that is directed against certain specified biological targets identified by us in the performance of the research activities while we are performing the research activities pursuant to the research plan and for a specified period thereafter. Under our collaboration with MyoKardia, we are restricted from researching, developing, manufacturing, commercializing, using, or otherwise exploiting any compound or product (a) that is a compound or product under the agreement that is directed against certain targets identified by us in the performance of the research activities for the treatment, prophylaxis, or diagnosis of any indication or (b) for the treatment of any genetically defined cardiomyopathies shown to be related to certain specified genes of interest that are modulated by the targets chosen by MyoKardia under our collaboration, in each case , while we are performing the research activities pursuant to the research plan and for a specified period thereafter.
69
Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.
If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our product engine.
Risks Related to our Intellectual Property
If we are unable to obtain, maintain, enforce and protect patent protection for our technology and product candidates or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates may be adversely affected.
Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of the intellectual property we may own solely and jointly with others or may license from others, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to any proprietary technology and product candidates we develop. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates that are important to our business and by in-licensing intellectual property related to our technologies and product candidates. If we are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to any proprietary technology or product candidate, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.
The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, defend or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain, enforce and defend the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. Therefore, these in-licensed patents and applications may not be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, defended and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.
The patent position of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the scope of patent protection outside of the United States is uncertain and laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States or vice versa. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. With respect to both owned and in-licensed patent rights, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates. In addition, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not published at all. Therefore, neither we nor our licensors can know with certainty whether either we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in the patents and patent applications we own or in-license now or in the future, or that either we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our owned and in-licensed patent rights are highly uncertain. Moreover, our owned and in-licensed pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology and product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents and our ability to obtain, protect, maintain, defend and enforce our patent rights, narrow the scope of our patent protection and, more generally, could affect the value or narrow the scope of our patent rights. For information relating to our patent portfolio, see Item 1 “Business-Intellectual Property” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Moreover, we or our licensors may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, inter
70
partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize drugs without infringing third-party patent rights. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. For example, while we believe that the specific and generic claims contained in our U.S. patent provide protection for the method of using losmapimod for the treatment of FSHD and while we also believe that the specific and generic claims contained in our issued and pending U.S. non-provisional and provisional applications provide protection for the pharmaceutical compositions and methods of use for FTX-6058, third parties may nevertheless challenge such claims. If any such claims are invalidated or rendered unenforceable for any reason, we will lose valuable intellectual property rights and our ability to prevent others from competing with us would be impaired.
Additionally, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if our owned and in-licensed patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and in-licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our management and employees, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or in-licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. As a result, our owned and in-licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing technology and products similar or identical to any of our technology and product candidates.
Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.
Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products, including generics or biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. For example, the composition of matter patents covering losmapimod, licensed from GSK, are expected to expire on February 10, 2023. As soon as the patents covering the composition of matter expire on February 10, 2023, or are no longer in-force, the GSK-licensed patents will no longer be a barrier to entry for any new uses not covered by our other patents and patent applications. Given the near term expiration date of these patents, and the fact that safe harbor protections in many jurisdictions permit third parties to engage in development, including clinical trials, these patents may not provide us with any meaningful competitive advantage.
If we are unable to obtain licenses from third parties on commercially reasonable terms or fail to comply with our obligations under such agreements, our business could be harmed.
It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our products, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties. If we are unable to license such technology, or if we are forced to license such technology on unfavorable terms, our business could be materially harmed. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could materially harm our business and the third parties owning such intellectual property rights could seek either an injunction prohibiting our sales or an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us.
If we are unable to obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, product
71
candidates, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected technology and product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.
Additionally, if we fail to comply with our obligations under license agreements, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market, or may be forced to cease developing, manufacturing or marketing, any product that is covered by these agreements or may face other penalties under such agreements. Such an occurrence could materially adversely affect the value of the product candidate being developed under any such agreement. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements, or restrictions on our ability to freely assign or sublicense our rights under such agreements when it is in the interest of our business to do so, may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology or impede, or delay or prohibit the further development or commercialization of one or more product candidates that rely on such agreements.
If we do not obtain patent term extension in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and in foreign countries under similar legislation, our business may be materially harmed.
In the United States, the patent term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may be eligible for limited patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to, among other factors, the length of time the drug is under regulatory review, but such patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one eligible patent may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other jurisdictions outside the United States. If and when our product candidates receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions where applicable, but there is no guarantee that the applicable governmental authorities will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. We may not be granted patent term extension either in the United States or in any foreign country because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. If we are unable to obtain any patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following the expiration of our patent rights, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.
Further, for our licensed patents, we may not have the right to control prosecution, including filing with the USPTO a petition for patent term extension thus if one of our licensed patents is eligible for patent term extension, we may not be able to control whether a petition to obtain a patent term extension is filed, or obtained, from the USPTO.
There are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If one of our product candidates is approved and a patent covering that product candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, an ANDA applicant would not have to provide notice to us with respect to that patent. See “Business—Intellectual Property” for additional information regarding patent laws and patent protection.
Changes to patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.
Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of patent laws in the United States, including patent reform legislation such as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned and in-licensed patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our owned and in-licensed issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These changes include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents, and enable third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent at USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first-to-file system in which,
72
assuming that the other statutory requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. As such, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our patent rights and our ability to protect, defend and enforce our patent rights in the future.
Although we or our licensors are not currently involved in any litigation, we may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our or our licensor’s issued patents or other intellectual property. As a result, we or our licensors may need to file infringement, misappropriation or other intellectual property related claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke such parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, such parties could counterclaim that the patents we or our licensors have asserted are invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may institute such claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions ( e.g. , opposition proceedings). The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable.
An adverse result in any such proceeding could put one or more of our owned or in-licensed patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, and could put any of our owned or in-licensed patent applications at risk of not yielding an issued patent. A court may also refuse to stop the third party from using the technology at issue in a proceeding on the grounds that our owned or in-licensed patents do not cover such technology. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information or trade secrets could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. Any of the foregoing could allow such third parties to develop and commercialize competing technologies and products and have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. Our defense of litigation or interference or derivation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.
Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.
73
Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.
Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable patent and other intellectual property litigation in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. We may become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our technology and product candidates, including interference proceedings, post grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions such as oppositions before the European Patent Office. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our technologies or product candidates that we may identify may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.
The legal threshold for initiating litigation or contested proceedings is low, so that even lawsuits or proceedings with a low probability of success might be initiated and require significant resources to defend. Litigation and contested proceedings can also be expensive and time-consuming, and our adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we can. The risks of being involved in such litigation and proceedings may increase if and as our product candidates near commercialization and as we gain the greater visibility associated with being a public company. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of merit. We may not be aware of all such intellectual property rights potentially relating to our technology and product candidates and their uses, or we may incorrectly conclude that third party intellectual property is invalid or that our activities and product candidates do not infringe such intellectual property. Thus, we do not know with certainty that our technology and product candidates, or our development and commercialization thereof, do not and will not infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate any third party’s intellectual property.
Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations or methods, such as methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, related to the discovery, use or manufacture of the product candidates that we may identify or related to our technologies. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that the product candidates that we may identify may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Moreover, as noted above, there may be existing patents that we are not aware of or that we have incorrectly concluded are invalid or not infringed by our activities. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover, for example, the manufacturing process of the product candidates that we may identify, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire.
Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize the product candidates that we may identify. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.
We may choose to take a license or, if we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could also be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and marketing our technology and product candidates. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us and could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right and could be forced to indemnify our customers or collaborators. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. In addition, we may be forced to redesign our product candidates, seek new regulatory approvals and indemnify third parties pursuant to contractual agreements. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
74
Intellectual property litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.
Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and may also have an advantage in such proceedings due to their more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of intellectual property litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.
Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance, renewal and annuity fees and various other government fees on any issued patent and pending patent application must be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages or annually over the lifetime of our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In certain circumstances, we rely on our licensing partners to pay these fees to, or comply with the procedural and documentary rules of, the relevant patent agency. With respect to our patents, we rely on an annuity service, outside firms and outside counsel to remind us of the due dates and to make payment after we instruct them to do so. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
If we fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property licenses and funding arrangements with third parties, or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.
We are party to license and funding agreements, such as the our agreement with GSK, and we may enter into additional licensing and funding arrangements with third parties that, that impose or may impose diligence, development and commercialization timelines, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. Under our existing licensing and funding agreements, we are obligated to pay royalties on net product sales of product candidates or related technologies to the extent they are covered by the agreements. If we fail to comply with such obligations under current or future license and funding agreements, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements or require us to grant them certain rights. Such an occurrence could materially adversely affect the value of any product candidate being developed under any such agreement. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We also have licenses and agreements to certain technologies used in our product engine, all of which are non-exclusive. While we still face all of the risks described herein with respect to those agreements, we cannot prevent third parties from also accessing those technologies. In addition, our licenses may place restrictions on our future business opportunities. For example, under our license with GSK, GSK has certain rights of first negotiation if we wish to sublicense any of the patent or data rights licensed by GSK to us to a third party for use outside the United States. This may prevent or delay certain transactions, which could have an adverse effect on the development and commercialization of losmapimod and on our business.
75
Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:
• the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation related issues;
• the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licens
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.