Item 1. Business
Item 1. Business
Overview
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the research, development and commercialization of innovative therapies for rare and severe diseases of the front and back of the eye. Our product candidate, KPI-012, which we acquired from Combangio, Inc., or Combangio, on November 15, 2021, is a mesenchymal stem cell secretome, or MSC-S, and is currently in clinical development for the treatment of persistent corneal epithelial defects, or PCED, a rare disease of impaired corneal healing. Based on the positive results of a Phase 1b clinical safety and efficacy trial of KPI-012 in patients with PCED, along with favorable preclinical safety and efficacy results, we submitted an investigational new drug application, or IND, to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, which was accepted in December 2022. In February 2023, we dosed our first patient in our CHASE ( C orneal H ealing A fter SE cretome therapy) Phase 2b clinical trial of KPI-012 for PCED in the United States, or the CHASE trial.
The CHASE trial is comprised of two patient cohorts. On March 27, 2023, we announced positive safety data from the first cohort of the CHASE trial, which is an open-label study to evaluate the safety of the high dose of KPI-012 ophthalmic solution (3 U/mL) dosed topically four times per day, or QID, in two patients. Both patients in the first cohort successfully completed at least one week of dosing with no safety issues observed. We have initiated the second and final patient cohort of the CHASE trial in the United States, which is a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group trial to evaluate the safety and tolerability of two doses of KPI-012 ophthalmic solution (3 U/mL and 1 U/mL) versus vehicle dosed topically QID for 56 days in approximately 90 patients. We plan to add trial sites in Latin America, subject to regulatory approval.
The primary endpoint of the trial is the complete healing of the PCED as measured by corneal fluorescein staining. We are targeting reporting topline safety and efficacy data from the CHASE trial by the end of 2024. If the results are positive, and subject to discussion with regulatory authorities, we believe this trial could serve as the first of two pivotal trials required to support the submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, for KPI-012 to the FDA.
KPI-012 has received Orphan Drug and Fast Track designations from the FDA for the treatment of PCED.
We believe the multifactorial mechanism of action of KPI-012 also makes our MSC-S a platform technology. We are evaluating the potential development of KPI-012 for additional rare front-of-the-eye diseases, such as for the treatment of Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency, or LSCD, and other rare corneal diseases that threaten vision. In addition, we have initiated preclinical studies under our KPI-014 program to evaluate the utility of our MSC-S platform for inherited retinal degenerative diseases, such as Retinitis Pigmentosa and Stargardt Disease. In connection with the determination to focus our research and development efforts on KPI-012, in 2022, we determined to cease the development of our preclinical pipeline programs that are unrelated to our MSC-S platform. We expect to commercialize in the United States any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval.
We previously developed and commercialized two marketed products, EYSUVIS ® (loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension) 0.25%, for the short-term (up to two weeks) treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, and INVELTYS ® (loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension) 1%, a topical twice-a-day ocular steroid for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. Both products applied a proprietary mucus-penetrating particle drug delivery technology, which we referred to as the AMPPLIFY ® Drug Delivery Technology.
On July 8, 2022, Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Alcon Vision, LLC, which we refer to collectively as Alcon, purchased from us the rights to manufacture, sell, distribute, market and commercialize EYSUVIS and INVELTYS and to develop, manufacture, market and otherwise exploit the AMPPLIFY Drug Delivery Technology, which we collectively refer to as the Commercial Business. Alcon also assumed certain liabilities with respect to the Commercial Business at the closing of the transaction. Alcon paid us an upfront cash payment of $60.0 million upon the closing of the sale of the Commercial Business. We are also eligible to receive from Alcon up to four commercial-based sales milestone payments as follows: (1) $25.0 million upon the achievement of $50.0 million or more in aggregate worldwide
6
Table of Contents
net sales of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS in a calendar year from 2023 to 2028, (2) $65.0 million upon the achievement of $100.0 million or more in aggregate worldwide net sales of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS in a calendar year from 2023 to 2028, (3) $75.0 million upon the achievement of $175.0 million or more in aggregate worldwide net sales of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS in a calendar year from 2023 to 2029 and (4) $160.0 million upon the achievement of $250.0 million or more in aggregate worldwide net sales of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS in a calendar year from 2023 to 2029. Each milestone payment will only become payable once, if at all, upon the first time such milestone is achieved, and only one milestone payment will be paid with respect to a calendar year. In the event that more than one milestone is achieved in a calendar year, the higher milestone payment will become payable and the lower milestone payment will become payable only if the corresponding milestone is achieved again in a subsequent calendar year. To date, no milestones have been achieved, and we have not received any milestone payments from Alcon.
The following table describes the stage of each of our development programs:
We have retained worldwide commercial rights for our MSC-S platform, including KPI-012 and KPI-014. We own and/or exclusively license patents and patent applications relating to this platform, including U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications. The expiration dates of the issued U.S. patents that we control covering KPI-012 are scheduled to expire no earlier than 2040, and a portfolio of additional U.S. and ex-U.S. patent applications covering the MSC-S platform is currently in prosecution.
Strategy
Our goal is to become a leading biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the research, development and commercialization of innovative therapies for rare and severe diseases of the front and back of the eye. Key elements of our strategy include:
● Advance the clinical development of, and seek regulatory approval for, KPI-012 for the treatment of PCED. KPI-012 is a novel, human bone-marrow derived MSC-S currently in clinical development for the treatment of PCED. A PCED is a persistent non-healing corneal defect or wound that is refractory to conventional treatments. On March 27, 2023, we announced positive safety data from the first cohort of the CHASE trial and subsequently initiated the second and final patient cohort. We are targeting reporting topline safety and efficacy data for the CHASE trial by the end of 2024. If the results are positive, and subject to discussion with regulatory authorities, we believe this trial could serve as the first of two pivotal trials required to support the submission of a BLA for KPI-012 to the FDA. If approved, we intend to commercialize KPI-012 with a small, targeted, internal sales force in the United States. We also expect to explore commercialization of KPI-012 for the treatment of PCED in certain markets outside the United States utilizing a variety of collaboration, distribution, co-promotion and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties.
● Advance KPI-012 for additional rare ocular surface disease indications and KPI-014 for rare inherited retinal degenerative diseases. We are also evaluating the potential of KPI-012 to treat other rare front-of-the-eye diseases, such as LSCD and other rare corneal diseases that threaten vision. In addition, we have
7
Table of Contents
initiated preclinical studies of KPI-014, our preclinical program evaluating the utility of our MSC-S platform for inherited retinal degenerative diseases, such as Retinitis Pigmentosa and Stargardt Disease.
● Business development through selective transactions. We plan to pursue value-driven business development opportunities as they arise in order to enhance our business and product pipeline, which may include opportunistically in-licensing or acquiring the rights to complementary products, product candidates and technologies, particularly for the treatment of rare ophthalmic diseases. We also plan to explore a variety of transactions to maximize the value of our assets, including out-licensing transactions, collaborations, distributions and other development and marketing arrangements with one or more third parties for our product candidates.
Our Clinical-Stage Product Candidate
KPI-012 for Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects
Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects Overview
PCED is a persistent non-healing corneal defect or wound that is refractory to conventional treatments. PCED is a disease of impaired corneal healing and can be the result of numerous etiologies, including (but not limited to) neurotrophic keratitis, or NK, microbial/viral keratitis, surgical epithelial debridement, corneal transplant surgery, LSCD, mechanical/thermal trauma and exposure keratopathy. Normal healing is a highly regulated multifactorial process that involves numerous biologic pathways and molecules, including growth factors, cell signaling, proliferation, migration and extracellular matrix remodeling. In PCED, the normal healing process is impaired due to an imbalance of the key biomolecules that orchestrate the normal wound healing process. We believe that effective treatment of PCED across the various etiologies requires a multifactorial mechanism of action to address the impaired healing that is responsible for the defects.
PCED is a rare disease with an estimated incidence of 100,000 cases per year in the United States and 238,000 cases per year in the United States, European Union and Japan combined. Clinical symptoms of PCED include pain, foreign body sensation, redness, photophobia and tearing. Clinical signs include non-healing epithelial defects, stromal scarring and stomal thinning. A PCED may lead to infection, corneal ulceration, corneal perforation, scarring, opacification and significant vision loss.
Limitations of Existing Treatments for Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects
There is currently a significant unmet need for therapies to effectively treat PCED. Conventional therapies, which include bandage contact lenses, autologous serum and surgery, are usually ineffective in overcoming the dysregulation present in multiple cellular pathways that may need to be addressed to heal a PCED. Surgical procedures used in the treatment of PCED include tarsorrhaphy, corneal epithelial stem cell transplants and corneal transplants which are used to aid in restoration and maintenance of vision capabilities.
The only currently approved prescription product in the PCED space is Oxervate ® , indicated for the treatment of NK, which we believe to be the primary etiology for approximately one-third of PCED cases. Oxervate contains a single growth factor – nerve growth factor (NGF) – and has been demonstrated to be effective in only the subgroup of PCED cases whose underlying etiology is neurotrophic disease. Oxervate is a topical eye drop that is administered six times per day at two-hour intervals for eight weeks. Each administration of Oxervate requires the use of a vial containing the drug product, a vial adapter, a single-use pipette and disinfectant wipes.
KPI-012 Opportunity in Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects
KPI-012 is a novel, human bone-marrow derived MSC secretome composed of biologically active components secreted from the MSCs, such as growth factors, protease inhibitors, matrix proteins and neurotropic factors, that have been shown in preclinical studies by Combangio to facilitate corneal healing. KPI-012 is cell-free and produced from a proprietary cell bank. The drug substance for KPI-012 is produced as a chemically-defined cell-free solution followed by formulation and filling of the drug product in non-preserved single dose units. We believe that KPI-012’s multi-factorial mechanism of action has the potential to normalize the impaired healing in PCED and other severe ocular surface
8
Table of Contents
diseases driven by impaired healing. As such, we believe KPI-012 offers a potentially promising approach for the treatment of PCED and other ocular surface diseases across multiple etiologies. Key biological factors contained in KPI-012 and their potential wound healing functions are shown below:
Key KPI-012 Components
Ocular Surface Wound-Healing Function
Protease Inhibitors
(TIMP-1, TIMP-2, Serpin E)
Inhibit destructive proteases that degrade matrix in the wound bed
Matrix Proteins
(Fibronectin)
Build a molecular scaffold in the wound bed for cells to migrate and adhere to
Growth Factors
(HGF)
Suppress inflammation and promote corneal epithelium repair
Neurotrophic Factors
(PEDF)
Promote maintenance of neurons to support corneal health
The multifactorial mechanism of action of KPI-012 is thought to be responsible for the significant wound healing activity observed in Combangio’s preclinical animal models and in the completed Phase 1b clinical trial. KPI-012 has received Orphan Drug and Fast Track designations from the FDA for the treatment of PCED.
CHASE 2b Clinical Trial of KPI-012 and Clinical Development Plan of KPI-012
We are initially developing KPI-012 for the treatment of PCED. Combangio completed a Phase 1b clinical efficacy trial in nine patients with PCED in Mexico City, Mexico. Based on the results of this Phase 1b clinical trial, we initiated a full preclinical development program and submitted an IND application to the FDA for KPI-012, which was accepted in December 2022. In February 2023, we dosed the first patient in the CHASE trial of KPI-012 in patients with PCED in the United States. The CHASE trial is comprised of two patient cohorts. On March 27, 2023, we announced positive safety data from the first cohort of the CHASE trial, which is an open-label study to evaluate the safety of the high dose of KPI-012 ophthalmic solution (3 U/mL) dosed topically QID in two patients. Both patients in the first cohort successfully completed at least one week of dosing with no safety issues observed.
We have initiated the second and final patient cohort in the CHASE trial in the United States, and we plan to add trial sites in Latin America, subject to regulatory approval. The second cohort is a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group trial in PCED patients with varying underlying etiologies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two doses of KPI-012 ophthalmic solution (3 U/ml and 1 U/ml) compared to vehicle when dosed topically QID for 56 days. The trial has an 8-week treatment period with evaluations at frequent times during the dosing period and at 10 weeks and 26 weeks.
The trial is expected to enroll approximately 90 adult patients with PCED, and the primary endpoint is complete healing of the PCED at week 8 as measured by corneal fluorescein staining using a central-reading center assessment of corneal fluorescing staining photographs. We are targeting reporting topline safety and efficacy data from the CHASE trial by the end of 2024. If the results are positive, and subject to discussion with regulatory authorities, we believe this trial can serve as the first of two pivotal trials required to support the submission of a BLA for KPI-012 to the FDA.
Phase 1b Clinical Trial Results of KPI-012
Combangio conducted a Phase 1b clinical trial of KPI-012 in Mexico City, Mexico during 2020 and 2021, consisting of three subjects without active corneal disease, or the safety cohort, who were dosed twice a day (1 U/mL) for one week and nine patients with PCED, or the PCED cohort, who were dosed twice a day (1 U/mL) for up to eight weeks. Key inclusion criteria for the PCED cohort included:
● Subjects with PCED of at least 10 days without improvement from one or more conventional non-surgical treatments in study eye due to any of the following:
- NK, provided there was no active herpetic infection of the eye in the prior three months
9
Table of Contents
- Corneal Burns (alkali, acid and thermal)
- Post-photorefractive Keratectomy
- Post-corneal Transplant Surgery
- Corneal epithelial debridement resulting from Diabetic Vitrectomy Surgery
- Trauma
- Keratoconjunctivtis sicca
- Sj ö gren’s
- Corneal cross-linking
● Subjects with bilateral corneal burns could only have one eye entered into the clinical trial
● Any previous treatment was stopped except for the study medication
The participants in the Phase 1b trial were treated with KPI-012 topically twice a day, with the subjects in the safety cohort treated for one week and patients in the PCED cohort treated between one to eight weeks. KPI-012 was generally well tolerated in both cohorts, with only one subject experiencing treatment-related adverse events (mild and transient itching, red eye and blurred vision after study drug administration). There were no deaths or treatment-related serious adverse events during either cohort. One subject in the PCED cohort had to withdraw from the trial due to a protocol screening violation.
As depicted in Figure 1 below, six of the eight patients in the PCED cohort (75%) who completed the trial achieved complete healing of the lesion after four weeks of treatment, with the two other patients experiencing some clinical improvement but not complete healing. Four of eight patients in the PCED cohort (50%) achieved complete healing of the lesion after one week of treatment and the other two patients achieved complete healing within two to four weeks of initiation of treatment with KPI-012. All six of the patients who achieved complete healing remained healed through the follow-up period of the trial, which ranged between eight to 19 weeks. Of the two patients who did not show complete healing in the trial, clinical investigators noted some clinical improvement in both patients, but the corneal staining images did not show complete healing of the defect.
10
Table of Contents
Figure 1. Summary of Phase 1b clinical trial of KPI-012 for PCED, including representative images for a healed patient study eye. The Day 1 images were taken on the first day of treatment, prior to first KPI-012 administration, with the fluorescein (green) stain demarking the corneal wound boundary of the study eye image. The Day 7 images were taken on the last day of KPI-012 treatment showing the PCED completely healed. The images on the left depict the study eye viewed under blue light to visualize the PCED with fluorescein stain.
Significant pain relief was reported by patients in the PCED cohort within one week of treatment with KPI-012, as shown in Figure 2 below. Of the six patients who reported pain at the baseline, all six patients reported a reduction in pain after one week of treatment, four patients reported a pain score of zero after one week of treatment and all six patients reported a pain score of zero after three weeks of treatment.
Figure 2. PCED cohort patient-reported score of pain level due to defect using a visual analogue scale, or VAS, which is a subjective rating of pain levels on a scale of 0 to 10 where a score of 0 represents no pain at all and a score of 10 represents the worst possible pain.
KPI-012 Preclinical Studies and Results
KPI-012 was evaluated by Combangio in a number of preclinical studies. In these studies, KPI-012 promoted rapid ocular re-epithelialization and mitigated scarring and neovascularization in a number of well-established animal models.
11
Table of Contents
In vitro Human Corneal Epithelial Wound Closure Assay
The therapeutic mechanism of action of KPI-012 involves stimulating corneal re-epithelialization and ocular surface healing. Combangio evaluated KPI-012 in an in vitro wound gap assay developed using human corneal epithelial cells. In this assay, a mechanical defect (cell-free region) was introduced into a two-dimensional monolayer of epithelial cells to create a wound. The ‘injured’ monolayer was then treated with KPI-012 and the cell free region was monitored for wound closure as show in Figure 3 below. In this assay, KPI-012 exhibited a dose-dependent and potent wound closure response.
Figure 3. Representative images from an in vitro human corneal epithelial wound closure assay. A mechanical wound instilled to a corneal epithelial cell monolayer on Day 1 healed after treatment with KPI-012 (Day 4 of treatment), but not negative control (vehicle). Depicted images are wounded cell monolayers stained with Gentian Violet.
In vivo Mechanical Wound Studies of Activity
Combangio also evaluated the activity of KPI-012 in a mechanical corneal injury mouse model. In this model, a circular area on the surface of the cornea was debrided (mechanically scraped) to remove the epithelial layer and create a circular wound.
Topical formulations of vehicle or KPI-012 were administered twice daily to the wounded eyes. As shown in Figure 4 below, mice treated with KPI-012 exhibited prominent wound healing at day four of the treatment period, while the vehicle-treated wounded eyes remained largely unhealed. Further, treatment with KPI-012 resulted in reduced corneal haze and scarring relative to treatment with vehicle. Results of this mouse model suggested that at Day 4 of treatment KPI-012 promoted in vivo closure of cornea mechanical wounds relative to vehicle control.
12
Table of Contents
Figure 4. Representative images of wounded mouse corneas after mechanical injury (Day 1). Depicted is the fluorescein (green) stain, which demarks the corneal wound boundary. Treatment with KPI-012 rapidly healed the wound size (as indicated by the disappearance of the green stain by Day 4) relative to vehicle control-treated eyes.
A second confirmatory mechanical corneal injury mouse model study was performed according to the method described above using a different lot of KPI-012. The study yielded similar results, with KPI-012 promoting wound healing relative to vehicle as well as exhibiting dose-dependent potency dynamics. After four days of treatment, KPI-012 treated eyes exhibited more pronounced reduction in wound staining relative to vehicle-treated eyes, as shown in Figure 5A below, and after five days most KPI-012 treated eyes completely healed, as shown in Figure 5B below. Further, a KPI-012 formulation lacking key biologic factors known to mediate wound healing exhibited reduced healing capacity in the study, supporting the selection of KPI-012’s critical quality attributes.
Figure 5. Summary of second mouse corneal mechanical study. (A) Representative images of wounded mouse corneas after mechanical injury (Day 1) and after four days of treatment with KPI-012 or vehicle (Day 4). Depicted is the fluorescein (green) stain, which demarks the corneal wound boundary. Treatment with KPI-012 rapidly healed the wound size (as indicated by the disappearance of the green stain by Day 4) relative to vehicle control-treated eyes; (B) Treatment with KPI-012 resulted in more rapid complete healing and a greater percentage of completely healed eyes (dashed line), relative to vehicle-treated eyes (solid line).
13
Table of Contents
Other Potential Indications for KPI-012
We believe the multifactorial mechanism of action of KPI-012 also makes it a platform technology, and we are evaluating the potential development of KPI-012 for additional rare front-of-the-eye diseases, such as for the treatment of LSCD and other rare corneal diseases that threaten vision.
LSCD is an ocular surface disease characterized by the loss or deficiency of stem cells in the junction of the cornea and limbus, where they play an essential role in the generation and repopulation of corneal epithelial cells. When the limbal stem cell population is reduced or depleted, the ability of the corneal epithelium to repair and renew itself is compromised, which can result in recurrent epithelial breakdown, neovascularization, conjunctival overgrowth and other sequalae that can lead to loss of corneal clarity and vision impairment, as well as significant pain and diminished quality of life. There are currently no approved pharmaceutical products for the treatment of LSCD and there are an estimated 100,000 patients in the United States suffering from this disease. We believe these patients may be appropriate candidates for KPI-012 to maintain the integrity of the ocular surface and to avoid the vision impairment and pain associated with the disease. In addition to the effects of KPI-012 on corneal healing observed in both animal models and in PCED patients, there is data in the literature that suggest that MSC-S can restore the limbal stem cell niche, which would be of significant benefit in both partial or complete LSCD.
Potential Indications for KPI-014
We are also aiming to leverage the manufacturing and delivery expertise gained from KPI-012 development to develop a unique secretome formulation – designated as KPI-014 – specific for inherited retinal degenerative diseases. We have initiated preclinical studies under our KPI-014 program to evaluate the utility of our MSC-S platform for inherited retinal degenerative diseases, such as Retinitis Pigmentosa and Stargardt Disease.
MSC-S therapies have shown great promise to treat inherited retinal diseases, or IRDs, with the recognition that they function through their secretome (i.e., the secretion of paracrine factors that enhance retinal cell function and survival). We believe an MSC-S engineered for intravitreal delivery may provide an improved treatment option for IRDs as compared to the traditional MSC-based approach.
IRDs are associated with mutations in over 280 different genes, where each IRD has one or more mutations that cause disease onset and results in vision loss. It is projected that over 200,000 individuals in the United States alone suffer from IRDs. While significant progress has been made with gene therapies, these are typically limited to a single gene or mutation. With over 280 different IRD-associated genes, a therapy broadly effective for most IRDs does not currently exist, leaving patients with little-to-no options to slow disease progression and vision loss. We are developing KPI-014 with the goal of providing a broad, genotype-agnostic, therapeutic benefit to reduce vision loss and improve quality of life for patients suffering from inherited retinal degenerative diseases.
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.
Our competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies. Many of our competitors 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. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales 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. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.
14
Table of Contents
The key competitive factors affecting the success of KPI-012 and any other product candidates that we develop are the product candidate’s efficacy, safety, method of administration, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of insurance coverage and 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 our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected because in many cases insurers or other third-party payors seek to encourage the use of generic products.
Competition in PCED
There is currently a significant unmet need for therapies to effectively treat PCED. Conventional therapies, which include bandage contact lenses, autologous serum and surgery, are usually ineffective in overcoming the dysregulation present in multiple cellular pathways that may need to be addressed to heal a PCED. Surgical procedures used in the treatment of PCED include tarsorrhaphy, corneal epithelial stem cell transplants and corneal transplants which are used to aid in restoration and maintenance of vision capabilities.
There is one approved prescription pharmaceutical product in the PCED space. Oxervate (cenegermin-bkbj), which was approved in August 2018 for the treatment of NK, a degenerative disease characterized by decreased corneal sensitivity and poor corneal healing, which we believe to be the primary underlying etiology of approximately one-third of all PCED cases. Oxervate is a topical eye drop that is administered six times per day at two-hour intervals for eight weeks. Each administration of Oxervate requires the use of a vial containing the drug product, a vial adapter, a single-use pipette and disinfectant wipes.
To our knowledge, there are currently only two product candidates in active clinical development for the treatment of a broad PCED population. KIO-201, a chemically modified form of the natural polymer hyaluronic acid administered as an eye drop, is currently being studied in a Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with PCED by Kiora Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Nexagon®, an antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits connexin43 being developed by Amber Ophthalmics, is currently being studied in a Phase 2/3 clinical trial in patients with PCED resulting from severe ocular chemical and/or thermal injuries. Amber Ophthalmics has also indicated that it plans to study Nexagon® in a broad PCED population.
A number of companies are pursuing development of product candidates for the treatment of NK, including ReGenTree, LLC (Timbetasin), Recordati S.p.A. (Udonitrectag) and Claris Biotherapeutics, Inc. (CSB-001).
Competition in L imbal Stem Cell Deficiency
Competitive products and product candidates in LSCD include two stem cell-based approaches. ABCB5+ limbal stem cells, which are being studied in Phase 1/2 clinical trials and are being developed by RHEACELL GmbH & Co. KG, utilize allogeneic limbal stem cells derived from human corneal rims, which are expanded ex-vivo and manufactured as an advanced-therapy medicinal product. Holoclar utilizes autologous limbal stem cells derived from the healthy portion of the patient’s eye. Holoclar is approved in the European Union for treatment of LSCD caused by ocular burns and is developed by Chiesi. To our knowledge, there are no other products in development focused on LSCD.
Sales and Marketing
We have not yet established our own commercial organization or distribution capabilities specific to KPI-012. We believe that we will be able to commercialize KPI-012, if approved, for the treatment of PCED with a small, targeted, internal sales force in the United States and potentially other major markets. We expect to explore commercialization of KPI-012, if approved, in certain markets outside the United States utilizing a variety of collaboration, distribution, co-promotion, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties.
15
Table of Contents
Manufacturing and Supply
We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities for KPI-012. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of both drug substance and finished drug product for KPI-012 for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture of KPI-012 if it receives marketing approval. We utilize our substantial in-house expertise and know-how to develop and scale-up our manufacturing processes before these processes are transferred to third-party contract manufacturers, and to understand and establish controls of critical process parameters. We also have personnel with deep product development experience who actively manage the third-party contract manufacturers producing KPI-012 and plan to use such personnel to manage third-party contract manufacturers for any products that we may develop in the future.
We also rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for packaging, labeling, sterilization, storage, distribution and other production logistics for KPI-012. We have only limited supply agreements in place with respect to the manufacturing of KPI-012, and these arrangements do not extend to commercial supply. We obtain supplies of drug substance and finished drug product for KPI-012 on a purchase order basis and do not have long term committed supply arrangements with respect to KPI-012.
Manufacturing biologics is complex, especially in large quantities. Biologic products must be made consistently and in compliance with a clearly defined manufacturing process. KPI-012 is a bone-marrow derived MSC-S therapeutic composed of biologically active components, including protease inhibitors and growth factors, and is produced from a proprietary cell bank. The manufacturing process for KPI-012 is comprised of three stages: (1) cultivation of MSCs from a working cell bank and production of unprocessed conditioned media (cell-free secretome), (2) production of drug substance as a chemically defined solution and (3) formulation and filling of drug product. While the drug product for Combangio’s early research and Phase 1b clinical trial was cultivated using a planar culture model, we implemented a bioreactor cultivation model for our ongoing CHASE Phase 2b clinical trial of KPI-012. We also plan to utilize a bioreactor cultivation model for our planned clinical trials and for commercial supply of KPI-012. We are continuing the process of scaling up our manufacturing processes and capabilities with our third-party manufacturers to support longer term clinical development. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance.
KPI-012 drug product is manufactured from a vial of a working cell bank, which in turn was produced from a vial of master cell bank. KPI-012 master cell bank and working cell bank are stored in two separate locations. It is possible that we could lose the cell bank in both locations and have our manufacturing severely impacted by the need to replace the cell bank.
Intellectual Property
Our success depends significantly on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our products, product candidates, technology and knowhow, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development of our business, where patent protection is available. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.
As of March 25, 2024, we owned six U.S. issued patents and five U.S. patent applications, as well as twenty-nine foreign patent applications (including Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications). We exclusively licensed one U.S. patent application, as well as two foreign patent applications including original filings, continuations and divisional applications. Our patent portfolio includes the following patents and patent applications that we own or exclusively license:
● Six U.S. patents and five U.S. patent applications relating to pharmaceutical compositions including KPI-012 for treating ocular conditions, and twenty-nine related foreign patent applications, which are owned by us, and which, if granted with respect to the patent applications, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, are expected to expire beginning in 2040;
16
Table of Contents
● One U.S. patent application, related to secreted stem cell factors for tissue repairment and regeneration, and two related foreign patent applications, which are exclusively in-licensed from Stanford University, and which, if granted with respect to the patent applications, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, are expected to expire beginning in 2038;
Three U.S. patents relating to antibiotic compounds and their uses, and five related foreign patents, which are owned by us, and which, if granted with respect to the patent applications, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, are expected to expire in 2034. The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date of a U.S. patent as partial compensation for the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. We cannot provide any assurance that any patent term extension with respect to any U.S. patent will be obtained and, if obtained, the duration of such extension.
Similar provisions are available in the European Union and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those products, if permitted under the applicable laws, regulations, and rules and depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each drug and other factors. The expiration dates referred to above are without regard to potential patent term extension or other market exclusivity that may be available to us. However, we cannot provide any assurances that any such patent term extension of any patent will be obtained and, if obtained, the duration of such extension.
Trade Secrets
In addition to patents, we may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, and obtain and maintain ownership of certain technologies, in part, by confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.
Licensing and Other Arrangements
Stanford University License Agreement
As part of our acquisition of Combangio, we acquired Combangio’s exclusively in-licensed patent portfolio from Stanford University. In October 2019, Combangio entered into a license agreement with The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University, or Stanford, which was amended in February 2020. Pursuant to the license agreement with Stanford, or the Stanford Agreement, we hold a worldwide, exclusive, sublicensable license under certain patent rights, or licensed patents, directed to methods to promote eye wound healing, to make, have made, use, import, offer to sell and sell products that are covered by the licensed patents, or licensed products, for use in all fields.
17
Table of Contents
Financial Terms
In consideration for that license, Combangio paid Stanford an upfront fee of $15,000. Under the Stanford Agreement, we are obligated to pay Stanford annual license maintenance fees in the low-to-mid five figures which are creditable against earned royalties owed to Stanford for the same year, an aggregate of up to $1.1 million for the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, and an aggregate of up to $1.1 million for the achievement of specified sales milestones. Stanford is also entitled to receive tiered royalties from us in a low single digit percentage range of our, our affiliates’ and our sublicensees’ net sales of licensed products that are covered by a valid claim of a licensed patent. Our obligation to pay royalties will continue, on a country-by-country and licensed product-by-licensed product basis, until the last-to-expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering such licensed product in the country of manufacture and sale. Additionally, we are required to pay Stanford a low double-digit percentage of certain consideration we receive as a result of granting sublicenses to the licensed patents. In connection with our acquisition of Combangio, we paid Stanford a one-time change of control fee of $100,000. Stanford retains the right, on behalf of itself, Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, and all other non-profit research institutions, to practice the licensed patents for any non-profit purpose. In addition, the United States government retains nonexclusive rights under the licensed patents to practice or have practiced the licensed patents by or on behalf of the United States government or on behalf of any foreign government or international organization pursuant to treaty or agreement.
Diligence Obligations
Under the Stanford Agreement, we are obligated to diligently develop, manufacture and sell licensed product, diligently develop markets for licensed product, and use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve certain funding and development milestones by specified dates.
Term and Termination
Unless earlier terminated, our exclusive license under the Stanford Agreement will continue until the expiration of the licensed patents. We may terminate the Stanford Agreement at any time for any reason by providing at least 30 days’ written notice to Stanford. Stanford may terminate the agreement if we breach certain provisions of the agreement and fail to remedy such breach within 60 days after written notice of such breach by Stanford.
Combangio Merger Agreement
Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, entered into with Combangio in connection with the acquisition of Combangio in November 2021, the former Combangio stockholders or other equityholders, or the Combangio Equityholders, are entitled to receive from us up to $105.0 million in payments that are contingent upon the achievement of specified development, regulatory and commercialization milestones, or the Contingent Consideration.
Upon dosing of the first patient in our CHASE trial for PCED in the United States in February 2023, we paid the former Combangio Equityholders an aggregate of $2.5 million in cash and $2.4 million in shares of our common stock (representing an aggregate of 105,038 shares of our common stock) in March 2023. The remaining amount of $0.1 million was paid in January 2024. Any Contingent Consideration payable under the Merger Agreement in the future will be paid only in cash as follows:
● (i) $5.0 million payable upon the first patient dosed with any product candidate whose active ingredient comprises one or more biological factors secreted by MSCs or their progenitors, including KPI-012, or the Product Candidate, in a pivotal clinical trial, (ii) $12.5 million payable upon regulatory approval by the FDA of marketing and sale of a Product Candidate in the United States, subject to certain specified reductions; (iii) $17.5 million payable upon the first commercial sale of a Product Candidate in the United States, subject to certain specified reductions and (iv) an aggregate of up to $65.0 million payable upon the achievement of specified sales milestones;
● tiered cash royalties at percentage rates in the mid-to-high single digits payable on annual net sales of all Product Candidates; and
18
Table of Contents
● a cash payment at a percentage rate in the high single digits of all income, including earnout payments, received by us or any of our affiliates from a product license granted by us to a third party to sell or otherwise commercialize the Product Candidate in countries where neither we nor our affiliates conduct sales of such Product Candidate, subject to certain exceptions set forth in the Merger Agreement.
If the aggregate amount of Contingent Consideration payable in any calendar year exceeds $2.5 million, or the Excess Cash Cap, such excess portion, or the Carry Forward Contingent Cash Consideration, will be carried forward and, subject to application of the Excess Cash Cap in the following calendar year, become payable on the first business day of the following calendar year. Any Carry Forward Contingent Cash Consideration outstanding on June 1, 2026 is payable in full on June 1, 2026.
CIRM Award
Our development of KPI-012 is currently being funded, in part, by an award from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM. On August 2, 2023, Combangio entered into an award agreement with CIRM for a $15.0 million grant, or the CIRM Award, to support the KPI-012 program for the treatment of PCED as well as product and process characterization and analytical development for the program. The CIRM Award is subject to a co-funding requirement under which Combangio is obligated to spend a specified minimum amount on the development of KPI-012 to obtain the full award amount and a significant portion of the award is payable to Combangio upon the achievement of specified milestones that are primarily related to Combangio’s progress in conducting the CHASE clinical trial. Combangio has received an initial $5.9 million disbursement from CIRM, and the balance of $9.1 million is payable to Combangio upon the achievement of specified milestones. If we fail to satisfy the co-funding requirement under the CIRM Award or fail to achieve the milestones within the timeframe required by the CIRM Award, we may not receive full funding under the CIRM Award. CIRM may permanently cease disbursements under the CIRM Award if the milestones are not met within four months of their scheduled completion dates. Additionally, if CIRM determines, in its sole discretion, that Combangio has not complied with the terms and conditions of the CIRM Award, CIRM may suspend or permanently cease disbursements. Moreover, disbursements under the CIRM Award are contingent upon the availability of funds in the state of California’s Stem Cell Research and Cures Fund.
The CIRM Award also imposes financial conditions that may increase the costs of commercializing KPI-012, if approved. Under the terms of the CIRM Award, Combangio is obligated to pay a royalty on net sales of any product, service or approved drug resulting in whole or in part from the CIRM Award in the amount of 0.1% per $1.0 million of funds utilized by us until the earlier of 10 years from the date of first commercial sale of such product, service or approved drug and such time as nine times the amount of funds awarded by CIRM has been paid in royalties, or the Base Royalty. In addition, following the satisfaction of the Base Royalty, Combangio is obligated to pay a 1.0% royalty on net sales of any CIRM-funded invention in excess of $500 million per year until the last to expire patent covering such invention expires.
Additionally, there are significant compliance requirements associated with the CIRM Award, such as reporting, notification, recordkeeping and audit requirements, for which internal and external resources may be needed and which may increase our costs of doing business.
Securities Purchase Agreement for 2022 Private Placement
On November 28, 2022, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement, or the 2022 Securities Purchase Agreement, with certain institutional investors named therein, or the Purchasers, pursuant to which we agreed to issue and sell, in a private placement priced at-the-market under Nasdaq rules, shares of our common stock and shares of our Series E Convertible Non-Redeemable Preferred Stock, or Series E Preferred Stock, in two tranches for aggregate gross proceeds of up to $31.0 million, which we refer to collectively as the Private Placement.
Pursuant to the 2022 Securities Purchase Agreement, if at any time during the four-year period following the date of the first tranche closing, or the Participation Period, we propose to offer and sell new equity securities in an offering that is conducted pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, or in an offering that is registered under the Securities Act that is not conducted as a firm-commitment underwritten offering, then, subject to compliance with securities laws and regulations, we have agreed to offer each Purchaser the right to purchase its pro rata share of the total amount of the new equity securities, subject to certain conditions and limitations. In addition, if during the Participation Period, we propose to offer and sell new equity
19
Table of Contents
securities in a firm-commitment underwritten offering registered under the Securities Act, then subject to compliance with securities laws and regulations, we have agreed to use our commercially reasonable efforts to cause the managing underwriters of such offering to contact the Purchasers about potentially participating in such offering and to provide to each Purchaser the opportunity to purchase its pro rata share of such new equity securities, subject to certain conditions and limitations. The participation rights will terminate if the Purchasers are offered the opportunity to participate in an offering pursuant to the participation rights and do not purchase at least 50% of their aggregate pro rata share of the new equity securities offered for sale in such offering.
Pursuant to the 2022 Securities Purchase Agreement, the Purchasers have the right to have up to two non-voting observers attend and participate in all Board and committee meetings and, subject to the Purchasers owning directly specified minimum amounts of our common stock, the right to have the Board nominate and recommend for election by the stockholders up to three Purchaser designees to the Board (one designee at 9.9%, two designees at 15.0% and three designees at 25.0%) designated by the Purchasers, provided that at such time as the Purchasers have designated three Board designees, at least one such designee must qualify as an “independent” director under Nasdaq rules and be acceptable to the members of the Board who are not Purchaser designees.
The Purchasers’ participation rights, observer rights and Board designation rights also will terminate at such time as the Purchasers and their affiliates cease to own, in the aggregate, specified minimum amounts of the shares purchased in the Private Placement.
Pursuant to the 2022 Securities Purchase Agreement, we agreed that we will not without the prior approval of the requisite Purchasers (i) issue or authorize the issuance of any equity security that is senior or pari passu to the Series E Preferred Stock with respect to liquidation preference, (ii) incur any additional indebtedness for borrowed money in excess of $1,000,000, in the aggregate, outside the ordinary course of business, subject to specified exceptions, including the refinancing of our existing indebtedness or (iii) pay or declare any dividend or make any distribution on, any shares of our capital stock, subject to specified exceptions. We have filed a registration statement covering the resale of the shares of common stock acquired in the Private Placement and the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the shares of Series E Preferred Stock acquired in the Private Placement.
Securities Purchase Agreement for 2023 Private Placement
On December 21, 2023, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement, or the 2023 Securities Purchase Agreement, with certain institutional investors named therein, or the Series F Purchasers, pursuant to which we agreed to issue and sell, in a private placement priced at-the-market under Nasdaq rules, shares of our Series F Convertible Non-Redeemable Preferred Stock, or Series F Preferred Stock, for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $2.0 million. We agreed that we will not without the prior approval of the requisite Series F Purchasers (i) issue or authorize the issuance of any equity security that is senior or pari passu to the Series F Preferred Stock with respect to liquidation preference, (ii) incur any additional indebtedness for borrowed money in excess of $1,000,000, in the aggregate, outside the ordinary course of business, subject to specified exceptions, including the refinancing of our existing indebtedness or (iii) pay or declare any dividend or make any distribution on, any shares of our capital stock, subject to specified exceptions. We have agreed to register for resale the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Series F Preferred Stock, upon demand by the Series F Purchasers.
Securities Purchase Agreement for 2024 Private Placement
On March 25, 2024, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement, or the 2024 Securities Purchase Agreement, with certain institutional investors named therein, or the Series G Purchasers, pursuant to which we agreed to issue and sell, in a private placement priced at-the-market under Nasdaq rules, shares of our Series G Convertible Non-Redeemable Preferred Stock, or Series G Preferred Stock, for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $8.6 million. We agreed that we will not without the prior approval of the requisite Series G Purchasers (i) issue or authorize the issuance of any equity security that is senior or pari passu to the Series G Preferred Stock with respect to liquidation preference, (ii) incur any additional indebtedness for borrowed money in excess of $1,000,000, in the aggregate, outside the ordinary course of business, subject to specified exceptions, including the refinancing of our existing indebtedness or (iii) pay or declare any dividend or make any distribution on, any shares of our capital stock, subject to specified exceptions. We have agreed to register for resale the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Series G Preferred Stock, upon demand by the Series G Purchasers.
20
Table of Contents
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, 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.
U.S. Government Regulation of Biological Products
In the United States, biological products, or biologics, are licensed for marketing by the FDA under the Public Health Service Act, or the PHSA, and regulated by the FDA under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and for their regulatory approval, is typically referred to as a sponsor. A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:
● completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies according to good laboratory practices, or GLP, regulations or other applicable regulations;
● design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin and must be updated when certain changes are made;
● approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, or ethics committee representing each clinical trial site before each clinical trial may be initiated;
● performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, good clinical practices, or GCPs, and other clinical-trial related regulations to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for each proposed indication;
● preparation and submission to the FDA of a BLA, demonstrating the safety, purity and potency of the proposed product and requesting marketing approval for one or more proposed indications, including payment of application user fees;
● review of the BLA by an FDA advisory committee, where applicable;
● satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the biologic is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, requirements 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 clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of the clinical data submitted in support of the BLA; and
● FDA review and approval of the BLA, which may be subject to additional post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, and any post-approval studies required by the FDA.
Preclinical Studies
Before a sponsor begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry,
21
Table of Contents
formulation and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. These studies are typically referred to as IND-enabling studies. 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 and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, if applicable. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, 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
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 BLA. In addition to reviewing an IND to ensure the safety and rights of patients, the FDA also focuses on the quality of the investigation and whether it will be adequate to permit an evaluation of the drug’s safety and efficacy. In support of a request for an IND, sponsors must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, 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, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an 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 whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, or thereafter, 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 this case, 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. 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 is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. 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, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation 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 of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. 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.
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, or DSMB. This group provides recommendations 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 if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.
Reporting Clinical Trial Results
Under the PHSA, sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Although sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion,
22
Table of Contents
disclosure of the results can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. The NIH’s final rule on registration and reporting requirements for clinical trials became effective in 2017. With the issuance of pre-notices for voluntary corrective action and several notices of non-compliance during the past two years, the FDA has signaled the government’s willingness to enforce these requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues.
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 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. 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 with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators 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 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 investigational products available for expanded access. Sponsors are required, however, to make their expanded access policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.
In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.
Human Clinical Trials in Support of a BLA
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 product’s
23
Table of Contents
pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and 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 may be 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 or biologic: such Phase 3 studies are referred to as “pivotal.” A company’s designation of the phase of a trial is not necessarily indicative that the trial will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase.
In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA 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 and to further document a clinical benefit in the case of products approved under accelerated approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.
In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, actions plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans.
In June 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The draft guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s recently updated E6(R3) draft guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In addition, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials.
Interactions with FDA During the Clinical Development Program
Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, the sponsor will continue to have interactions with the FDA. Progress reports detailing the results of clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, 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 completed 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.
In addition, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include meetings prior to the submission of an IND and meetings prior to the submission of a BLA, as well as end of phase meetings such as end of Phase 2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or
24
Table of Contents
Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product, including for example, meetings to facilitate early consultations on the use of a biomarker as a new surrogate endpoint that has never been previously used as the primary basis for product approval in the proposed context of use. A type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues (typically limited to no more than two focused topics) and should not require input from more than three disciplines or divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product.
These meetings provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date with the FDA and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. Such meetings may be conducted in person, via teleconference/videoconference or written response only with minutes reflecting the questions that the sponsor posed to the FDA and the FDA’s responses. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure. In September 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the terms of such meetings in more detail.
Clinical Trials Outside the United States in Support of FDA Approval
In connection with our clinical development program, we may have trial sites outside the United States. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all 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 of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. 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.
The acceptance by the FDA of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States in support of U.S. approval may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.
Where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials are subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted.
Manufacturing and Other Regulatory Requirements
Concurrent with clinical trials, sponsors usually complete additional animal safety studies, develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing commercial quantities of the product candidate in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other criteria, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the finished product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
Specifically, the FDA’s regulations require that pharmaceutical products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of
25
Table of Contents
personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved pharmaceuticals are required to register their establishments with the FDA and some state agencies. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.
Manufacturing facilities are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements. Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated. Changes to the manufacturing process, specifications or container closure system for an approved product are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. The FDA’s regulations also require, among other things, the investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and the imposition of reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved product.
Pediatric Studies
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, an application 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 prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests and other information required by regulation. The sponsor, 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 sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time.
The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The law requires the FDA to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. It further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response.
Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although FDA has taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA by announcing that it does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease. The FDA also maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under the PREA.
Expedited Review Programs
The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of applications in several ways. None of these expedited programs, however, changes the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.
● Fast Track designation : Product candidates are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to
26
Table of Contents
have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.
● Breakthrough therapy designation. To qualify for the breakthrough therapy program, product candidates must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence must indicate that such product candidates may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product candidate receives intensive guidance on an efficient development program, intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review and rolling review.
● Priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, it would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention compared to marketed products. FDA aims to complete its review of priority review applications within six months as opposed to 10 months for standard review.
● Accelerated approval. Drug or biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.
With the passage of FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to: require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded, require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months (until the study is completed); and use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of a BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the FDA to publish on its website the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary, whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval. In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval.
● Regenerative advanced therapy. With passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.
Acceptance and Review of BLAs
Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, safety updates, patent information, abuse information and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA as part of an application requesting approval to market the product candidate for one or more indications. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, potency and purity of the biological product to the satisfaction of the FDA.
27
Table of Contents
The fee required for the submission and review of an application under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, is substantial (for example, for fiscal year 2024 this application fee is approximately $4.05 million), and the sponsor of an approved application is also subject to an annual program fee, currently $416,734 per eligible prescription product. These fees are typically adjusted annually, and exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the sponsor is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.
The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 calendar days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. Typically, an RTF will be based on administrative incompleteness, such as clear omission of information or sections of required information; scientific incompleteness, such as omission of critical data, information or analyses needed to evaluate safety and efficacy or provide adequate directions for use; or inadequate content, presentation, or organization of information such that substantive and meaningful review is precluded. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an 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.
After the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the application. The FDA reviews the application to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, whether it has an acceptable purity profile and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 10 months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application that is a new molecular entity, and six months from the filing date for an application with “priority review”. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the sponsor to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. Despite these review goals, it is not uncommon for FDA review of an application to extend beyond the PDUFA goal date.
In connection with its review of an application, the FDA will typically submit information requests to the sponsor and set deadlines for responses thereto. The FDA will also conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.
The FDA also may inspect the sponsor and one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with IND and GCP requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process. To ensure cGMP and GCP compliance by its employees and third-party contractors, a sponsor may incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control.
Additionally, the FDA may refer an application, including applications for novel product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA or its advisory committee may interpret data differently than the sponsor interprets the same data. The FDA may also re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the sponsor during the review process.
28
Table of Contents
The FDA also may require submission of a REMS, if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the product. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the application must submit a proposed REMS and the FDA will not approve the application without a REMS.
Decisions on BLAs
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, or CRL. To reach a determination of approval, the FDA must determine that the biologic is safe, pure and potent and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients. This “benefit-risk” assessment is informed by the extensive body of evidence about the product in the BLA. This assessment is also informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks. In connection with this assessment, the FDA review team will assemble all individual reviews and other documents into an “action package,” which becomes the record for FDA review. The review team then issues a recommendation and a senior FDA official makes a decision.
With respect to the evidentiary standard for making this determination, the FDA typically requires a robust safety database and two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. This approach was subsequently endorsed by Congress in 1998 with legislation providing, in pertinent part, that “If [FDA] determines, based on relevant science, that data from one adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation and confirmatory evidence (obtained prior to or after such investigation) are sufficient to establish effectiveness, the FDA may consider such data and evidence to constitute substantial evidence.” This modification to the law recognized the potential for the FDA to find that one adequate and well controlled clinical investigation with confirmatory evidence, including supportive data outside of a controlled trial, is sufficient to establish effectiveness. In December 2019, the FDA issued draft guidance further explaining the studies that are needed to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness. The FDA has not yet finalized that guidance, but it did issue draft guidance in September 2023 that outlines considerations for relying on confirmatory evidence in lieu of a second clinical trial to demonstrate efficacy.
A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six month extension to respond. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. The FDA has taken the position that a CRL is not final agency action making the determination subject to judicial review.
An approval letter, on the other hand, authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. That is, the approval will be limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the FDA-approved labeling. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes
29
Table of Contents
to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.
Under the Ensuring Innovation Act, which was signed into law in April 2021, the FDA must publish action packages summarizing its decisions to approve new biologics within 30 days of approval of such products. To date, CRLs are not publicly available documents.
Post-Approval Regulation
If regulatory approval for marketing of a new product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-approval regulatory requirements as well as any post-approval requirements that the FDA may have imposed as part of the approval process. 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 and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. 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. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.
A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.
Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the 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, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:
● restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;
● fines, warning letters or 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 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 product’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the product is approved. After approval, a product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the FDA will consider in determining the intended use of a biologic. In addition, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the FDA’s non-
30
Table of Contents
binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use.
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, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Further, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products.
If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and 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 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, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, and its implementing regulations, as well as the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCA, which regulate the distribution and tracing of prescription drug samples at the federal level, and set minimum standards for the regulation of distributors by the states. The PDMA, its implementing regulations and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples, and the DSCA imposes requirements to ensure accountability in distribution and to identify and remove counterfeit and other illegitimate products from the market.
Regulatory Exclusivity Governing Biologics
When a biological product is licensed for marketing by FDA with approval of a BLA, the product may be entitled to certain types of market and data exclusivity barring FDA from approving competing products for certain periods of time. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted in the United States and included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA. The BPCIA amended the PHSA to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. To date, the FDA has approved a number of biosimilar products and interchangeable biosimilar products.
Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for a product that is “biosimilar to” a previously approved biological product, which the statute refers to as a “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and the proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity and potency. The biosimilar sponsor may demonstrate that its product is biosimilar to the reference product on the basis of data from analytical studies, animal studies and one or more clinical studies to demonstrate safety, purity and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is approved. In addition, the sponsor must show that the biosimilar and reference products have the same mechanism of action for the conditions of use on the label, route of administration, dosage and strength, and the production facility must meet standards designed to assure product safety, purity and potency.
For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the FDA must find not only that the product is biosimilar to the reference product but also that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product such that the two products may be switched without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. Upon licensure by the FDA, an interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. Following approval of the interchangeable biosimilar product, the FDA
31
Table of Contents
may not grant interchangeability status for any second biosimilar until one year after the first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable biosimilar product. In December 2022, Congress clarified through FDORA that FDA may approve multiple first interchangeable biosimilar biological products so long as the products are all approved on the first day on which such a product is approved as interchangeable with the reference product.
A reference biological product is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, however, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of their product. There have been recent government proposals to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period, but none has been enacted to date. At the same time, since passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, which address pharmacy practices involving biosimilar products.
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 exclusivity. For biologic products, the six month period may be attached to any existing regulatory exclusivities but not to any patent terms. The conditions for pediatric exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new product in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric clinical trials, and the sponsor agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested clinical trials within the statutory timeframe. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a 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. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patents that cover the product are extended by six months. Although this is not a patent term extension, it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Orphan drug designation in the United States is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for treatment of rare diseases or conditions. In the United States, a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the product for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.
Orphan drug designation qualifies a company for tax credits and potentially market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the product’s approval if granted by the FDA. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. A product becomes an orphan when it receives orphan drug designation from the Office of Orphan Products Development at the FDA based on acceptable confidential requests. The product must then go through the review and approval process like any other product.
A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first approved product. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation.
If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select 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
32
Table of Contents
another sponsor’s marketing application for the same product for the same disease or condition for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. If a product 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.
The period of market exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the disease or condition for which the product has been designated. Orphan drug exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand or the subsequent product 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. This is the case despite an earlier court opinion holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously required the FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Under Omnibus legislation passed in December 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drug products that received orphan drug designation before enactment of amendments to the FDCA in 2017 but have not yet been approved by FDA.
In September 2021, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of market exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, the FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved.
Patent Term Restoration and Extension
In the United States, a patent claiming a new product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent extension of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. Assuming grant of the patent for which the extension is sought, the restoration period for a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the IND involving human beings is begun and the submission date of the BLA, plus the time between the submission date of the 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 in the United States. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.
Companion Diagnostics
In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, for novel biologics, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding therapeutic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling.
Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance intended to assist sponsors of the therapeutic product and in vitro companion diagnostic device on issues related to co-development of the products.
The 2014 guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a biologic product candidate generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a product are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if
33
Table of Contents
the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND application alone, or both an IND and IDE application.
In April 2020, the FDA issued additional guidance which describes considerations for the development and labeling of companion diagnostic devices to support the indicated uses of multiple drug or biological oncology products, when appropriate. This guidance builds upon existing policy regarding the labeling of companion diagnostics. In its 2014 guidance, the FDA stated that if evidence is sufficient to conclude that the companion diagnostic is appropriate for use with a specific group of therapeutic products, the companion diagnostic’s intended use/indications for use should name the specific group of therapeutic products, rather than specific products. The 2020 guidance expands on the policy statement in the 2014 guidance by recommending that companion diagnostic developers consider a number of factors when determining whether their test could be developed, or the labeling for approved companion diagnostics could be revised through a supplement, to support a broader labeling claim such as use with a specific group of oncology therapeutic products (rather than listing an individual therapeutic product(s)). Under the FDCA, in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require pre-notification marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution.
The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to the product candidate to obtain pre-market approval, or PMA, simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic product candidate. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the sponsor must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee.
After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the Quality System Regulation, which covers the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the United States.
Healthcare 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
34
Table of Contents
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 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 Affordable Care Act, 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, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; 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.
Healthcare Reform
A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of drug and biologic products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for medical products and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.
In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for pharmaceutical products under government healthcare programs. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted 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. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to
35
Table of Contents
2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through the first half of 2032. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 sequester for two years, through the end of 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Consolidated Appropriations Act’s health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in years 2030 and 2031.
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, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed into law on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. In June 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. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.
The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden rescinded those orders and issued a new executive order that directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit access to healthcare, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and under the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.
36
Table of Contents
Pharmaceutical Prices
The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care.
In addition, in October 2020, the Department of Human and Health Services, or HHS, and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation.
Further, HHS finalized 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 final rule would also eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.
The IRA has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.
Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028 and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year.
The IRA includes a provision exempting orphan drugs from Medicare price negotiation but this exclusion has been interpreted by CMS in final guidance issued in July 2023 to apply only to those orphan drugs with an approved indication (or indications) for a single rare disease or condition. The final guidance clarifies that CMS will consider only
37
Table of Contents
active designations/approvals when evaluating a drug for the exclusion, such that designations/indications withdrawn before the selected drug publication date will not be considered. CMS also clarified that, if a drug loses its orphan drug exclusion status, the agency will use the earliest date of approval/licensure to determine whether the product is a qualifying single source drug subject to price negotiations.
In June 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and pharmaceutical companies, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.
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. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription pharmaceutical and other healthcare programs.
Federal and State Data Privacy Laws
There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities, in the United States and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the health care industry generally, under HIPAA, HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them. Our clinical trials are regulated by the Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.
In 2018, California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020 and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents. Many of the CCPA’s requirements are similar to those found in the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, in Europe, including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt-out of “sales” of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023 and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the
38
Table of Contents
California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities. In addition to California, a number of other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data (which includes health data in some cases). Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering privacy laws that will go into effect in 2025 and beyond. Other states will be considering these laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, Washington state passed a health privacy law in 2023 that will regulate the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data, and more states are considering such legislation in 2024. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our product candidates, if approved.
Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our current or future business activities, including certain clinical research, sales and marketing practices and the provision of certain items and services to our customers, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such privacy and data security laws. The heightening compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and secure systems to comply with different privacy compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions could increase the possibility that a healthcare company may fail to comply fully with one or more of these requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the privacy or data security laws or regulations described above that are applicable to us, or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a consent decree or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any product candidates we may develop, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.
Review and Approval of Medical Products in the European Union
In order to market any product outside of the United States, a sponsor 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, a sponsor 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 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
On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or the Clinical Trials Regulation, became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, or the Clinical Trials Directive. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the European Union, or EU Member State, will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.
All ongoing clinical trials in the European Union approved under the prior Clinical Trials Directive must be transitioned to the Clinical Trials Information System by January 31, 2025. This date marks the end of a three-year
39
Table of Contents
transition period that began when the Clinical Trials Regulation became applicable in the European Union on January 31, 2022. Clinical trials that were started under the Clinical Trials Directive and subject to transition to the Clinical Trials Regulation will, by January 31, 2025, have to comply with the obligations of the Clinical Trials Regulation even if these are not included in the previous study protocol, such as (i) obligations of notification via the Clinical Trials Information System; (ii) safety reporting rules; (iii) archiving requirement; and (iv) transparency requirements. The failure to transition ongoing clinical trials to the Clinical Trials Regulation by January 31, 2025 can result in corrective measures under Article 77 of the Clinical Trials Regulation, including revocation of the authorization of the clinical trial or suspension of the clinical trial as well as criminal sanctions and fines under national law of EU Member States.
Beyond streamlining the process, the Clinical Trials Regulation includes a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (EU Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each EU Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.
The Clinical Trials Regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion.
Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the EU at the EU Clinical Trials Register.
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 reviewed under the centralized procedure. 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 marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated Agency contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level.
Pediatric Studies
Companies developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, with the EMA’s pediatric committee, or PDCO, and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted by the PDCO of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date.
40
Table of Contents
Marketing Authorization
Marketing authorization applications, or MAAs, can be filed either under the so-called centralized or national authorization procedures, albeit through the Mutual Recognition or Decentralized procedure for a product to be authorized in more than one EU member state.
The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization following a favorable opinion by the EMA that is valid in all EU Member States, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, which are part of the European Economic Area, or EEA. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicines (such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure, 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 sponsor in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding stop-clocks.
There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several EU countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:
● Decentralized procedure . Using the decentralized procedure, a sponsor may apply for simultaneous authorization in more than one EU country of medicinal products that have not yet been authorized in any EU country and that do not fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. The sponsor may choose a member state as the reference member State to lead the scientific evaluation of the application.
● Mutual recognition procedure . In the mutual recognition procedure, a medicine is first authorized in one EU Member State (which acts as the reference member state), in accordance with the national procedures of that country. Following this, further marketing authorizations can be progressively sought from other EU countries in a procedure whereby the countries concerned agree to recognize the validity of the original, national marketing authorization produced by the reference member state.
Under the above-described procedures, before granting the marketing authorization, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.
Conditional Approval
In particular circumstances, E.U. legislation (Article 14–a Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/5 and Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use) enables sponsors to obtain a “conditional marketing authorization” prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if (1) the product candidate is intended for the treatment, prevention or medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating or life-threatening disease; (2) the product candidate is intended to meet unmet medical needs of the patients; (3) a marketing authorization may be granted prior to submission of comprehensive clinical data provided that the benefit 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; (4) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, and (5) it is likely that the sponsor will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data. 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 or specific obligations. The timelines
41
Table of Contents
for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization, but sponsors can also request EMA to conduct an accelerated assessment, for instance, in cases of unmet medical needs.
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. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may decide, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five-year period of marketing authorization. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the marketing authorization shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU n market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).
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 notably under Directive 2001/83EC, as amended, and EU Member State laws. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is prohibited across the EU.
Regulatory Data Protection in the EU
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 sponsors for authorization of generics of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abridged) application for a period of eight years. During an additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization application can be submitted and authorized, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic 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. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity 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
42
Table of Contents
authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.
Pediatric Exclusivity
If a sponsor 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, or alternatively a one year extension of the regulatory market exclusivity from ten to eleven years, as selected by the marketing authorization holder.
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
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: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the EU when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the EU and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the EU would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the sponsor must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EU or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.
Once authorized, orphan medicinal products are entitled to 10 years of market exclusivity in all EU Member States and in addition a range of other benefits during the development and regulatory review process including scientific assistance for study protocols, authorization through the centralized marketing authorization procedure covering all member countries and a reduction or elimination of registration and marketing authorization fees. However, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10-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 it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.
Patent Term Extensions
The European Union also provides for patent term extension through Supplementary Protection Certificates, or SPCs. The rules and requirements for obtaining a SPC are similar to those in the United States. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of marketing exclusivity for a drug. In certain circumstances, these periods may be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained. Although SPCs are available throughout the European Union, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the European Union.
Reimbursement and Pricing of Prescription Pharmaceuticals
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
43
Table of Contents
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. 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.
General Data Protection Regulation
Many countries outside of the United States maintain rigorous laws governing the privacy and security of personal information. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, and it imposes heightened requirements on companies that process health and other sensitive data, such as requiring in many situations that a company obtain the consent of the individuals to whom the sensitive personal data relate before processing such data. Examples of obligations imposed by the GDPR on companies processing personal data that fall within the scope of the GDPR include providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, appointing a data protection officer, providing notification of data breaches, 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 EEA, 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 violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR is 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. There are ongoing concerns about the ability of companies to transfer personal data from the EU to other countries. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the United States. This CJEU decision may lead to increased scrutiny on data transfers from the EU to the United States generally and increase our costs of compliance with data privacy legislation as well as our costs of negotiating appropriate privacy and security agreements with our vendors and business partners.
Additionally, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The EU initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in December 2022 and the European Commission adopted the adequacy decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the EU to the U.S. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue has the potential to impact our business.
As with other issues related to withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, there are open questions about how personal data will be protected in the United Kingdom and whether personal information can transfer from the EU to the United Kingdom. Following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, the UK Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the United Kingdom and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by the GDPR. While the Data Protection Act 2018 in the United Kingdom that “implements” and complements the GDPR has achieved Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 and is now effective in the United Kingdom, it is still unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the United Kingdom will remain lawful under the GDPR. The UK government has already determined that it considers all European Union and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the United Kingdom to the European Union/EEA remain unaffected. In addition, a recent decision from the European Commission appears to deem the United Kingdom as being “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the United Kingdom, although this decision may be re-evaluated in the future.
44
Table of Contents
Beyond the GDPR, there are privacy and data security laws in a growing number of countries around the world, including Latin American countries where we plan to conduct clinical trials. While many loosely follow the GDPR as a model, other laws contain different or conflicting provisions. These laws will impact our ability to conduct our business activities, including both our clinical trials and any eventual sale and distribution of commercial products.
Human Capital
Our ability to sustain and grow our business requires us to hire, retain and develop a highly skilled workforce. As of December 31, 2023, we had a total of 43 full time employees. We continually evaluate our business needs and opportunities and balance in-house expertise and capacity with outsourced expertise and capacity.
Recruiting, motivating and retaining qualified employees is critical to our success. We monitor our compensation programs and aim to provide our employees a competitive mix of cash compensation and medical insurance benefits, as well as the opportunity to participate in our equity programs. We believe that our philosophy of providing competitive compensation, along with opportunities for career growth and development, encourages a high level of corporate employee tenure and low level of voluntary turnover. A large majority of our employees have obtained advanced degrees in their professions. Our employees are supported with training and development opportunities to pursue their careers and to ensure compliance with our policies. 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.
We value the health, safety and wellbeing of our employees and their families. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have implemented significant changes that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, as well as the communities in which we operate, and which comply with government regulations. This includes allowing our corporate employees to work remotely.
Our Corporate Information
We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in July 2009. Our website address is www.kalarx.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our website address is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as an inactive technical reference only.
Available Information
Through our website, we make available free of charge our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. In addition, we regularly use our website to post information regarding our business, product development programs and governance, and we encourage investors to use our website, particularly the information in the section entitled “Investors,” as a source of information about us.
The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our website address is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as an inactive technical reference only.
45
Table of Contents