Item 1. Business
Item 1 . Business.
Our Company
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing targeted immunotherapies for cancer. THIO (6-thio-dG or 6-thio-2 ‘-deoxyguanosine), our lead asset, is an investigational dual mechanism of action drug candidate incorporating telomere targeting and immunogenicity. In July 2022, the first patient was administered with THIO in our Phase 2 human trial (THIO-101) in Australia. In December 2022, regulatory authorities in three European countries, Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria, approved the implementation of THIO-101, Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating THIO in patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Patients with advanced NSCLC will be treated first with THIO followed a few days later by the immune checkpoint inhibitor Libtayo ® (cemiplimab), manufactured and commercialized by Regeneron. Cemiplimab is a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the immune checkpoint receptor PD-1 on T-cells. Cemiplimab has been approved in the United States and the rest of the world for multiple cancer indications, including NSCLC. In February 2021, we signed a clinical supply agreement with Regeneron to receive cemiplimab at no cost, which represents a significant cost-savings for the study. In return, we have granted Regeneron exclusive development rights in combination with PD-1 inhibitors for NSCLC for the study period. Based on the clinical data generated by our THIO-101 trial, we plan to seek filing for an accelerated approval of THIO in the United States for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC in 2026, but even if granted, accelerated approval status does not guarantee an accelerated review or marketing approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We plan to initiate a Phase 3 pivotal trial in 2025, named THIO-104, to evaluate the efficacy of THIO administered in sequence with a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) in third-line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are resistant to checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy. The multicenter, open-label, pivotal Phase 3 trial is designed to provide a direct comparison to chemotherapy in a 1:1 randomization of up to 300 patients. In addition, the originally planned Phase 2 clinical trial in multiple tumor indications (THIO-102) is now divided into different trials for one tumor indication each: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), colorectal cancer (CRC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Phase 2 clinical trials in HCC, CRC and SCLC are planned to be initiated in 2026, evaluating treatment with THIO administered in sequence with BeiGene's immune checkpoint inhibitor, tislelizumab. Clinical trials with other solid tumors (ST), such as breast, prostate, gastric, pancreatic and ovarian, may still be considered for potential future trials.
We were incorporated in Delaware in August 2018, and have operations in Chicago, Illinois, with some of our team members setup virtually and working remotely in California, North Carolina, and New Jersey, among others. Our principal executive office is located at 444 West Lake Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60606, and our phone number is (312) 416-8592. In July 2021, we established a wholly-owned Australian subsidiary, MAIA Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd., to conduct various preclinical and clinical activities for the development of our product candidates. ln April 2022, we established a wholly owned Romanian subsidiary, MAIA Biotechnology Romania S.R.L. to conduct various preclinical and clinical activities for the development of our product candidates. Our website address is www.MAIABiotech.com. The information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this prospectus supplement, and you should not consider any information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website as part of this prospectus supplement or in deciding whether to purchase our securities.
Our Lead Product Candidate
THIO is a telomere-targeting agent currently in clinical development to evaluate its activity in NSCLC. Telomeres, along with the enzyme telomerase, play a fundamental role in the survival of cancer cells and their resistance to current therapies. THIO is being developed as a second- or later line of treatment for NSCLC for patients that have progressed beyond the standard-of-care regimen of existing checkpoint inhibitors.
In 2019, our research team discovered that THIO produced telomere modifications and disruption, which ultimately induced cancer-specific innate and adaptive immune responses against immunologically “cold” or tumor types that were unresponsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors. This hypothesis was tested and demonstrated in syngeneic and humanized mouse models. THIO administered to mice in low doses and followed by an immune-checkpoint inhibiting agent, such as an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 compound, induced complete tumor regression with no tumor recurrence during the 14 weeks of observation. Further, no toxicities were reported in the tumor-free mice. These new findings were published in the peer-reviewed research scientific journal, Cancer Cell in July 2020. Based on these recent discoveries, a new therapeutic approach has been designed to advance THIO into a Phase 2 clinical trial (THIO-101) in patients with advanced NSCLC.
Our regulatory strategy includes a filing of an Investigational New Drug application (IND) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA or FDA). This was granted and will allow U.S. sites to participate in the THIO-101 NSCLC trial. The human safety data generated in Australia and Europe constituted the basis of the IND application. Although we plan to rely solely on the safety and efficacy data we generate in our own clinical trials in support of our planned New Drug Application (NDA) filing, and do not plan to rely on clinical data generated by unaffiliated third parties, we take added confidence in the potential tolerability of
3
THIO in light of the fact that the THIO dose selected of 180 mg/cycle is 14 times lower than the maximum tolerated dose tested in the earlier clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the 1970s. The THIO-101 Phase 2 trial is a proof-of-concept study that may be modified depending on interim results to include both primary and secondary endpoints and be consistent with previously approved cancer treatments. In September 2022, we submitted a pre-IND meeting request to the FDA to discuss, among other elements, the existing non-clinical and clinical data to support the conduct of our planned THIO-101 Phase 2 trial under an IND to include patients from the U.S. MAIA received feedback in-line with the proposed plans from the FDA regarding its manufacturing, preclinical and clinical development plan. MAIA also obtained guidance from the FDA on the assessment of its safety and efficacy in the THIO-101 Phase 2 trial that was incorporated in the U.S. IND application. The U.S. IND was granted in 2023.
Based on the clinical data we aim to generate in the THIO-101 study and assuming THIO achieves its intended clinical effect with a manageable safety profile at one of the doses tested in the study, we expect to seek early FDA guidance on the possibility of utilizing one or more of FDA’s expedited programs for serious conditions, such as fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and/or accelerated approval designation. Accelerated approval status does not guarantee an accelerated review or marketing approval by the FDA. The THIO-101 study protocol was amended in December 2024 to increase the number of patients enrolled in an expansion arm to further evaluate efficacy of the treatment in third-line NSCLC patients resistant to checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy. The study may undergo modification of the statistical analysis, a change in the trial design, and/or primary endpoints.
On April 11, 2023, we announced positive topline data related to the completion of Part A, safety lead-in portion of the THI0-101 trial which showed that administration of THIO, at the highest dose of 360 mg/cycle in sequential combination with Regeneron’s anti-PD-1 therapy, Libtayo ® was well tolerated with no dose limiting toxicities or significant treatment-related adverse events reported.
On April 18, 2023, we published data in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) models: as monotherapy, THIO achieved complete and durable responses in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC), the dominant histology in primary liver cancer (90%), in in vivo models. When combined with Libtayo ® , duration of response was further potentiated. Even upon rechallenge with two times more cancer cells and no additional treatment, tumor growth was completely prevented. Administration of THIO alone and in combination with Libtayo ® generated anticancer immune memory.
On April 20, 2023, we announced preliminary survival data from Part A of THIO-101. The first two patients enrolled in Part A of the study continued to be alive, approximately 10 and 9 months respectively, from treatment initiation. Both patients have advanced Stage IV metastatic disease and are heavily pretreated, receiving third and fourth line of therapy respectively after previously failing treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor. They continue to be progression free following their last dose of THIO, 7 and 6 months respectively, with no new treatment. The current treatment options in patients with advanced relapsed or refractory NSCLC who failed two or more therapy regimens are limited and show minimal benefit. Furthermore, discontinuation of treatment is rapidly followed by physical decline and death, therefore seeing patients with such survival and no disease progression in this clinical setting, is noteworthy. In real-world clinical practice, observed survival in such heavily pretreated patients is 3-4 months.
On June 20, 2023, we announced updates in enrollment in THIO-101 in Europe. To that date, 29 patients have been dosed in THIO-101. With the addition of sites in Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria in March 2023, THIO-101 has rapidly increased the number of patients enrolled and dosed with THIO. Thirteen sites were activated with another two new additional sites ready to open shortly afterward.
On July 10, 2023, we announced updates on preliminary survival data in the Part A safety lead-in of THIO-101. The first 2 patients enrolled in the study continued to be alive, approximately 12.2 and 11.5 months respectively, from treatment initiation. Both patients have advanced Stage IV metastatic disease and failed 2 prior lines of therapy, including one line with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI), and platinum-based chemotherapy. Following the conclusion of study treatment, they have remained free of disease progression for 10.2 and 8.5 months, respectively, without requiring any additional therapy.
On July 11, 2023, we announced updates on disease control data in the part A safety lead-in of THIO-101. Of the first 11 patients enrolled in THIO-101 to complete at least 1 post baseline response assessment, 9 (82%) met the primary endpoint of disease control (defined as a Complete Response, Partial Response, or Stable Disease per RECIST 1.1). All patients enrolled have previously failed 2 or more prior lines of treatment including an immune CPI and platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC.
On October 24, 2023, we reported unprecedented interim disease control rate (DCR) of 100% in second-line treatment that far surpasses standard of care (SoC) DCR of 53-64%, presented at ESMO 2023. DCR is far stronger than overall response rate (ORR) in predicting overall survival benefit, as shown in a recent meta-analysis of 74 clinical trials worldwide in NSCLC.
On December 19, 2023, we announced dose selection for THIO-101, a Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating its lead asset, THIO, in sequential combination with Regeneron’s anti-PD-1 cemiplimab (Libtayo ® ) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). During the dose-finding stage of THIO-101, patients were administered either 60mg, 180mg, or 360mg of THIO per cycle, followed by 350mg of cemiplimab (Libtayo ® ). The selected dose, 180mg/cycle, presented better safety profile and outperformed the
4
other doses in the key measures of efficacy for NSCLC trials. Subsequently, all future trial participants will be treated with THIO 180mg/cycle.
On January 17, 2024, we announced new interim data for our ongoing THIO-101 Phase 2 trial in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the latest available data from THIO-101 (November 13, 2023), 60 patients had been dosed with THIO in sequential combination with Libtayo ® . The patients received either 60mg, 180mg, or 360mg of THIO per dose, and 42 had at least one post baseline assessment completed. The observed disease control was well sustained compared to previous scans.
On February 7, 2024, we announced publication of international Patent Cooperation Treat (PCT) application titled “Dinucleotides and Their Use in Treating Cancer.” The new dinucleotides disclosed in the patent application are telomere-targeting molecules, such as THIO fragments or other THIO analogues. These compounds are key next-generation telomere-targeting agents, an important extension of MAIA’s innovative cancer treatment platform. The PCT system streamlines the process for obtaining patent protection globally. Under the PCT, applicants can seek patent protection in a large number of countries.
On February 22, 2024, we announced completion of enrollment in Phase 2 THIO-101 go-to-market clinical trial. The trial reached the enrollment target of 41 patients for the 180mg/dose on February 19, 2024. As of the latest data available for the trial, 79 patients had received either 60mg (24 patients), 180mg (41 patients) or 360mg (14 patients). The original trial design targeted up to 182 patients, including all patients in the safety lead-in and 41 patients in each of the 3 tested doses (60mg, 180mg, and 360mg). Following the selection of 180 mg/cycle as the optimal dose in December 2023, all patients were subsequently enrolled at the 180mg/cycle dose and trial enrollment was completed ahead of schedule.
On March 6, 2024, we announced interim efficacy data for THIO-101 Phase 2 trial in NSCLC. In the latest data available (January 8, 2024), the overall response rate (ORR), characterized as partial or complete response to therapy, was 38% (3 out of 8 patients) in the efficacy evaluable population for combination THIO 180mg + cemiplimab in third-line treatment for NSCLC patients who failed treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors in prior lines of therapy, with or without chemotherapy.
On March 27, 2024, we evaluated additional clinical data from its Phase 2 clinical trial, THIO-101. At such time, a total of 68 patients have been dosed and had a post-baseline scan in MAIA’s Phase 2 clinical trial, THIO-101, evaluating THIO in sequential combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor in patients with advanced NSCLC. Preliminary efficacy across all lines of therapy in this March 2024 data cut were consistent with previous reports including: (i) 75% of patients receiving THIO 180mg as third-line therapy for NSCLC have surpassed the overall survival (“OS”) threshold of 5.8 months; (ii) 88% of patients in the same setting (3L, 180mg) also crossed the 2.5 months progression free survival (“PFS”) threshold and have shown ORR of 38%, greatly improving on current chemo treatment that have ORRs of around 6-10%; and (iii) across all third-line patients, DCR of 85% remained superior to current chemotherapy options, which ranges from 25-35% DCR.
On June 4, 2024, we announced new preliminary efficacy data from the Phase 2 THIO-101 clinical trial. The updated included that as of April 30, 2024: (i) all evaluable patients had completed ≥1 post-baseline assessment; (ii) third-line treatment across all doses had shown DCR of 85% for THIO, 65% of patients crossed the 5.8-month OS threshold identified in literature, 85% of patients crossed the 2.5-month PFS threshold, median survival follow-up time was 9.1 months; and (iii) third-line treatment with THIO 180mg had shown median PFS of 5.5 months, 78% OS rate at 6 months, 38% ORR, 75% of patients crossed the 5.8-month OS threshold, 88% of patients crossed the 2.5-month PFS threshold and median survival follow-up time observed was 9.1 months.
On June 6, 2024, we announced MAIA highlights and key achievements year-to-date, including: (i) exceptional measures of efficacy by lead drug THIO in Phase 2 clinical trial, with 38% ORR in third-line (3L) setting (THIO 180mg) compared to ~6% for currently available treatments in a similar population and 5.5 months median progression-free survival (PFS) (3L, THIO 180mg); and (ii) secured continued insider investment through independent board members’ participation in private placement equity financings, with funding of more than $12M year-to-date.
On June 7, 2024, we announced the validation of clinical and regulatory pathways for viable therapies leveraging the cell’s telomeric functions as evidenced by the FDA approval of imetelstat, a treatment for low- to intermediate-risk hematologic malignancies (myelodysplastic syndromes) from Geron Corporation, illuminating the role of telomere targeting as a viable therapeutic strategy for cancer treatment.
On July 23, 2024, we announced treatment updates from our Phase 2 clinical trial of THIO. As of June 12, the latest clinical cut-off date: (i) 6 patients remain on treatment following at least 12 months of therapy; (ii) treatment with THIO followed by cemiplimab has been well tolerated throughout the trial, with lower toxicity compared to standard-of-care treatments; and (iii) the longest-treated patients have completed 21 cycles of THIO sequenced with cemiplimab.
On September 10, 2024, we announced updates from our lead clinical candidate THIO, in our Phase 2 clinical trial, THIO-101. The updates included: (i) As of August 1, 2024, 16 patients had survival follow-up surpassing 12 months, including 9 in third line
5
treatment (3L); (ii) Interim median survival follow-up in 3L was 10.6 months.; and (iii) THIO's substantial survival benefit in third line surpasses comparable standard-of-care overall survival of 5.8 months.
On December 3, 2024, we announced the amendment of the 2021 clinical supply agreement with Regeneron for the expansion portion of THIO-101, its Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating THIO in sequential administration with cemiplimab (Libtayo ® ). The new expansion will further assess the efficacy of MAIA’s lead asset, THIO, sequenced with immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) Libtayo ® (cemiplimab) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving third-line therapy who were resistant to previous checkpoint inhibitor treatments and chemotherapy. The original 2021 agreement between MAIA and Regeneron was designed to supply the original THIO-101 trial through the dose selection and safety evaluation process.
On December 16, 2024, we announced that the FDA has designated THIO for the treatment of pediatric-type diffuse high-grade gliomas (PDHGG) as a drug for a “rare pediatric disease” (RPDD). Upon FDA approval of a future new drug application in PDHGG, MAIA would be eligible to receive a priority review voucher that can be redeemed by drug developers for FDA priority review of a different product or transferred or sold to another sponsor.
On January 7, 2025, we announced that we had entered into a clinical supply agreement with global oncology company BeiGene to assess the efficacy of THIO, its small molecule telomere-targeting anticancer agent, in combination with BeiGene’s immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) tislelizumab in three cancer indications. The single arm pivotal Phase 2 trials will study the drug combination in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). Under the terms of the collaboration, MAIA will sponsor and fund the planned clinical trials and BeiGene will provide tislelizumab. MAIA maintains global development and commercial rights to THIO and is free to develop the programs in combination with other agents and in other indications.
On February 4, 2025, we announced positive updated data from THIO-101 Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating its lead clinical candidate, THIO, sequenced with Regeneron’s immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) cemiplimab (Libtayo ® ) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who failed two or more standard-of-care therapy regimens. As of January 15, 2025, third line (3L) data updates showed that: (i) median overall survival (OS) of 16.9 months for the 22 NSCLC patients who received at least one dose of THIO (the intent-to-treat population) in parts A and B of the trial. (ii) The analysis demonstrated a 95% confidence interval (CI) lower bound of 12.5 months and a 99% CI lower bound of 10.8 months. (iii) The treatment has been generally well-tolerated to date in this heavily pre-treated population.
On February 26, 2025, we announced the trial design for the expansion of its THIO-101 pivotal Phase 2 trial in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The expansion of the study will assess overall response rates (ORR) in advanced NSCLC patients receiving third line (3L) therapy who were resistant to previous checkpoint inhibitor treatments (CPI) and chemotherapy. The THIO-101 study in 3L will enroll up to 48 patients with two arms: Arm 1, continuing the evaluation of THIO sequenced with Libtayo ® (cemiplimab); and Arm 2, evaluating THIO as a monotherapy, to further gain experience of THIO in the contribution of components. Treatment cycles for patients in both arms will administer THIO on 3 consecutive days, followed by immune activation on day 4. Arm 1 will administer Libtayo on day 5. The Company plans to enroll an additional 100 patients for the registration phase of the trial. MAIA expects to conduct the trials in the U.S. and select countries in Europe and Asia.
On February 27, 2025, we announced plans to initiate a Phase 3 pivotal trial in 2025, named THIO-104, to evaluate the efficacy of THIO administered in sequence with a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) in third-line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are resistant to checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy. The multicenter, open-label, pivotal Phase 3 trial is designed to provide a direct comparison to chemotherapy in a 1:1 randomization of up to 300 patients.
On March 18, 2025, we announced that the United States Adopted Names (USAN) Council had approved “ateganosine” as the nonproprietary (generic) name for its lead molecule THIO, a telomere-targeting anticancer agent in clinical development as a first-in-class treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The company chose a name inspired by the mechanism of action of THIO: altering telomeric guanosine of the cancer cells. The generic name ateganosine is a unique and consistent identity that aims to support clear communication between healthcare providers, patients and researchers. MAIA will retain the name THIO in its clinical trial designations (THIO-101, THIO-102, THIO-103, THIO-104).
On March 20, 2025, we announced the publication of preclinical data for its lead proprietary telomere-targeting THIO dimer in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology. In a preclinical study, THIO and its new described dimer form were found to be potent inhibitors of Glutathione S-transferase Pi (GSTP1), a key enzyme implicated in cancer progression and chemoresistance and a highly important factor for the detoxification of cancer cells. The findings suggest that the dimerized form of THIO could enhance chemotherapeutic efficacy by effectively targeting GSTP1 and reducing drug resistance. The article, titled “Investigation of the inhibitory effects of the telomere-targeted compounds on glutathione S-transferase P1,” was published on February 15, 2025.
6
Our Science--Driven Telomere Targeting Approach
Telomeres are regions of repetitive DNA nucleotide sequences that are associated with specialized proteins at the ends of linear chromosomes in cells. THIO’s mechanism of action comprises telomere targeting and induction of anti-cancer immunogenicity. The enzyme telomerase recognizes THIO’s metabolite formed in situ and incorporates it into the structure of the cancer cell’s telomeres, creating a faulty structure, which breaks apart the telomere spatial structure. As a result, the THIO-modified telomeric structure unwinds, recognized as DNA damage, and the cancer cells die. We believe THIO transforms “cold” tumors into “hot” tumors rendering them responsive to immunotherapy (checkpoint inhibitors) and this process takes place promptly within 24 to 72 hours. We also believe we can improve the immunotherapy efficacy and we can restore the immunotherapy efficacy in patients who have progressed or developed resistance to prior immunotherapy.
Telomere maintenance is a fundamental biologic process for cell proliferation and resilience in cancer cells, and thus represents one of the key therapeutic targets for cancer treatment. Telomerase is an enzyme that is present in a majority of human cancer cells (over 85% in the aggregate), across various tumor types. In contrast, its activity is detected in less than 1% of normal cells. THIO has only been shown to be active in cancer cells that are telomerase positive (TERT+) and actively dividing. Cancer cells are constantly telomerase positive due to an uncontrolled division process, while a relatively small number of normal cells are telomerase positive only transiently. Therefore, THIO activity is expected to be highly specific to cancer cells versus normal cells. Cancer-specific disturbance of telomeric structure, mediated by telomerase, is likely to lead to disruption in the cell cycle, followed by a very rapid and telomere-length independent cell death. THIO was observed in preliminary in vitro and in vivo studies to induce cancer-specific telomere disruption, by using the enzyme telomerase which differentiates THIO from all other available cancer therapies currently in clinical use. We are also currently developing potential next-generation small molecule telomere modifying agents with the goal of identifying additional proprietary drug candidates, across multiple cancer types. We have generated eighty-two (82) new telomere-targeting compounds of which sixty (60) compounds have been evaluated in vitro. Currently, seven (7) molecules have been selected for further evaluation in additional in vitro and in vivo models.
Human clinical trials prior to approval are typically conducted in three sequential Phases that may overlap or be combined. In Phase 1, the drug or biologic is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion. In Phase 2, the drug or biologic is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule for patients having the specific disease. In Phase 3, larger-scale clinical trials are undertaken to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety and the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product. Post-approval studies, or Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted voluntarily, or as a condition of FDA’s approval of a drug. These studies may be used to confirm preliminary efficacy results, gain additional experience from the treatment of certain patient populations, or to support additional indications or labeling changes.
We completed our selection process for the clinical sites for our Phase 2 study in Australia and Europe and our application to start the Phase 2 study in Australia was approved on March 1, 2022, by the Australian Regulatory Agency—Bellberry Human Research Ethics Committee. In July 2022, the first patient was administered with THIO in our Phase 2 human trial (THIO-101) in Australia. In December 2022, regulatory authorities in three European countries, Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria, approved the implementation of THIO-101, Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating THIO in patients with NSCLC.
In March 2022, the FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) to THIO for the treatment of HCC, in May 2022, the FDA granted the second ODD to THIO for the treatment of small cell lung cancer, and in late 2023, a third ODD for Malignant Gliomas Brain Cancer. The FDA’s Office of Orphan Products Development may grant orphan designation status to drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of rare diseases, or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S. ODD provides certain benefits, including financial incentives, to support clinical development and the potential for up to seven years of market exclusivity for the drug for the designated orphan indication in the U.S. if the drug is ultimately approved for its designated indication.
7
Our Second Generation Molecule Candidates
We have initiated an early-stage research and discovery program aimed at identifying new compounds capable of acting through similar mechanisms of activity as THIO, such as the targeting and modifying telomeric structures of cancer cells through cancer-cell intrinsic telomerase activity. The main objective for this program is to discover new compounds with potentially improved specificity towards cancer cells relative to normal cells and with potentially increased anticancer activity. This program may also allow us to strengthen our patent portfolio. Although the program is in early stages and we may not be able to identify suitable compounds, we believe we will be able to create a second generation of THIO-like compounds.
Our current 2nd-generation pipeline of potential telomere-targeting agents includes seven compounds that have successfully undergone in vitro inhibitory testing in five cancer models. The data from those studies showed a significantly lower 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) for those compounds compared to THIO. Based on those data, we have progressed those seven compounds to in vivo testing. In January 2023, we nominated one lead new molecular entity candidate (designated as MAIA-2021-20) and one back-up new molecular entity candidate (MAIA-2022-12) for further advancement into preclinical GLP-toxicity and other studies and may advance one of these candidates into human clinical trials upon completion of the required preclinical evaluations. A third candidate (MAIA-2021-029) was selected in June 2023.
MAIA also filed a broad provisional patent application covering the composition of matter for the new telomere-targeting molecules in the fourth quarter of 2022.
OUR PIPELINE
Our robust pipeline includes several targeted immuno-oncology candidates for relapsed and refractory cancers.
8
Our Strategy
Our goal is to be the leader in the discovery, development and commercialization of cancer telomere targeting agents and other similar small molecules. Our initial focus is to efficiently advance our Phase 2 clinical program with THIO in sequential combination with cemiplimab for the treatment of NSCLC. Ultimately, our goal would be to position THIO as a patient anticancer immunity priming treatment for all immune-activating agents used in the treatment of cancer. To date THIO-101 is the only clinical trial testing THIO in combination with a check-point inhibitor. The key elements of our strategy are to:
• Advance our existing clinical programs, including seeking accelerated approval for THIO in NSCLC as a tumor mass-reducing and simultaneously immune system priming agent administered in advance of the immune-activating agent, cemiplimab for treatment of advanced NSCLC, and ultimately, as a cancer treatment foundation in multiple indications and geographies. Even if granted, accelerated approval status does not guarantee an accelerated review or marketing approval by the FDA.
• Broaden the clinical development of THIO by exploring synergistic administration prior to other standard-of care immune-therapies including cell therapy.
• Develop a franchise of telomere-targeting cancer treatments.
• Leverage our regulatory strategy to acquire additional human data faster outside U.S. for other cancer indications.
• Selectively enter into strategic collaborations with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that have immune activating therapies.
• Expand our existing intellectual property portfolio.
We will face certain challenges in implementing our business strategy including, among others, the fact that earlier development of THIO was not commercially pursued. Even if THIO successfully advances through clinical studies and towards approval for use, we may face early competition from generic alternatives to THIO after expiration of any applicable regulatory exclusivities.
9
THIO Market Opportunity and Unmet Medical Need
Most cancer cells are telomerase positive (TERT+), including 57% to 100% of primary human cancers dependent upon tumor type, indicating a significant potential therapeutic utilization for THIO across most of the tumor types. We believe successful targeting of telomeres in TERT+ cancers may represent a significant potential for broad therapeutic utilization.
Tumor Type
TERT(+)
Tumor Type
TERT(+)
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)
78%
Pancreatic Cancer
95%
Colorectal (CRC)
82-89%
Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC)
100%
Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)
79-86%
Ovarian Cancer
91%
Breast Cancer
88%
Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC)
83%
Prostate Cancer
90%
Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)
75%
Bladder Cancer
92%
Neuroblastoma
94%
Head & Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC)
`86%
Lymphoma (high grade)
100%
Gastric Cancer
85%
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML)
71%
Melanoma
83-86%
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
`57%
Cervical Cancer
100%
Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)
73%
Sources: A Survey of Telomerase Activity in Human Cancer – JW Shay, S Bacchetti – European Journal of Cancer, 33,5,787-791, 1997. Telomerase Active in Human Liver Tissues; H Tahara, et al; Cancer Research 55, 2734-2736 1995; Highly /aggressive Metastatic Melanoma Cell Unable to Maintain Telomere Length; N Viceconte et al; Cell Reports 2017; Clinical Relevance of Telomerase Status and Telomerase Activity in Colorectal Cancer; T Femandez et al; PLOS one 2016; and Telomeres, Telomerase, and Cancer: Mechanisms, Biomarkers, and Therapeutics; Shou et al; Experimental Hematology & Oncology 14:8 2025.
Our initial development program will focus on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), Colorectal Cancer (CRC), Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) and Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) in areas of clear unmet need and/or areas with deficient immunotherapy effect within each tumor type. Each tumor type and area of unmet or undermet needs represent significant clinical and commercial opportunity. We believe that THIO offers a desirable profile with significant commercial potential.
Tumor Type
Incidence
2022 (M)
5-Year
Prevalence
2022 (M)
Mortality
2022 (M)
Annual
Sales
2024 ($B)
Annual
Sales
2028 ($B) (projected)
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
2.1
2.7
1.5
28.3
43.3
Breast
2.3
8.1
0.7
12.6
15.0
Prostate
1.5
5.0
0.4
11.9
12.8
Colorectal
1.9
5.7
0.9
16.6
19.4
Liver
0.9
1.1
0.8
2.6
5.0
Small Cell Lung Cancer
0.4
0.5
0.3
1.6
2.3
Sources: Incidence, Prevalence, Mortality (Global Cancer Observatory / WHO); Sales (Global Data).
The table below reflects the current market for check-point inhibitors because there is no current market for THIO-like molecules. The years in the indication columns on the table below signify the timing of FDA approval in the US for the clinical indications of interest. Because the key element of our strategy is to develop THIO to work in combination with check-point inhibitors, if THIO is eventually approved by the FDA for use in conjunction with check-point inhibitors, this table provides a high-level understanding of the potential market for THIO in that combination. There is no assurance, however, that any potential market for THIO would follow the current landscape for checkpoint inhibitor franchises.
10
Current Landscape of Checkpoint Inhibitor Franchises
Drug
Company
2022
Sales
($B)
Indications
(tumor
types)
NSCLC
SCLC
CRC
HCC
Year of FDA Approval
KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab)
Merck
29.4
19
2015
2019
2017
2018
OPDIVO (nivolumab)
BMS / Ono
10.2
11
2015
2018
2017
2017
TECENTRIQ (atezolizumab)
Genentech / Roche
4.1
6
2016
2019
2020
IMFINZI (durvalumab)
AstraZeneca
4.7
5
2018
2020
2022
LIBTAYO (cemiplimab)
Regeneron
1.2
3
2021
TEVIMBRA (tislelizumab)
BeiGene
0.4
4
2024
TYVYT (sintilimab)
Eli Lilly / Innovent
0.6
3
BAVENCIO (avelumab)
Pfizer / Merck AG
0.6
3
JEMPERLI (dostarlimab)
GSK
0.6
2
TOTAL
51.8
Source: BioMed Tracker 2025
Intellectual Property
Our global patent and patent-pending estate covers several areas. Telomerase mediated telomere altering compounds and treatment of therapy-resistant cancers are part of our portfolio. Further, THIO’s immunogenic treatment strategy, which focuses on sequential combination with checkpoint inhibitors has been filed worldwide. We maintain nine (9) issued patents and have twenty-two (22) pending patent applications.
Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection wherever appropriate for our product candidates, formulations, processes, methods and any other proprietary technologies, and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our practice is to actively seek to obtain, where appropriate, intellectual property protection for our current product candidates and any future product candidates, proprietary information, and proprietary technology through a combination of patents, protection of proprietary know-how and trade secrets, and contractual arrangements, both in the United States and abroad. However, full patent protection may not provide us with complete protection against competitors who may seek to circumvent our intellectual property. Our success will depend on the skills, knowledge, experience and know-how of our management research and development personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants, and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how that is not patentable, we seek to put in place appropriate internal policies for the management of confidential information requiring all our employees, consultants, advisors, and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information, and which will require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries, and inventions important to our business. See “ Risk Factors – Risks Related to our Intellectual Property ” for additional information.
We file for patents, both directly and in collaboration with our licensing partners, in the United States with counterparts in certain countries in Europe and certain key market countries in the rest of the world, thereby covering the major pharmaceutical markets.
On December 8, 2020, we entered into an amended and restated agreement (of our prior November 29, 2018 agreement) with The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System on behalf of The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (collectively, UTSW). Pursuant to the amended and restated agreement, which we refer to as the UTSW1 Agreement, we obtained (1) an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize the following patent families, which are generally directed to methods of using THIO and are owned and/or controlled by UTSW:
Title / PCT Application Number
Telomerase Mediated Telomere Altering Compounds / PCT/US2014/33330 (WO2014/168947), issued in the US (patent no. 10,463,685), CA, MX, NZ and RU (all method of use) pending in BR, EPO (received an Intent to Grant), HK, and SG.
6-Thio-2'-Deoxyguanosine (6-Thio-dG) Results in Telomerase Dependent Telomere Dysfunction and Cell Death in Various Models of Therapy-Resistant Cancer Cells /
PCT/US2017/34706 (WO2017/205756), pending in the US (method of use), CA, and EPO.
Use of 6-thio-dG to Treat Therapy-Resistant Telomerase positive Pediatric Brain Tumors /
PCT/US2019/023596 (WO2019/183482), pending in the US (method of use)
Treatment of Drug Resistant Proliferative Diseases with Telomerase Mediated Telomere Altering Compounds / PCT/US2017/023858 (WO/2017/165675), issued in the US (patent no. 12,070,472) and one application pending in the US (18,781,413).
11
and (2) a non-exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize related technology rights. The UTSW1 Agreement includes an exclusive license to US patent no. 10,463,685 (expires April 8, 2034), and US patent no. 12,070,472 (having an anticipated expiration of March 23, 2037), and 18/511,417 (having an earliest expiration of March 22, 2039, if a patent is granted). All patents are method of use.
On December 23, 2020, we entered into a second agreement with UTSW, which granted the Company option rights in the UTSW1 Agreement and obtaining additional license rights. This second license with UTSW, which we refer to as the UTSW2 Agreement, we obtained (1) an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize the following UTSW patent family:
Title / PCT Application Number
Sequential Treatment of Cancers Using 6-Thio-dG and Checkpoint Inhibitors / PCT/US2021/022090, issued in the US, RU, EP (validated in AL, AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LI, LT, LU, MC, MK, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SI, SK, SM, TR) (method of use), pending in AU, BR, CA, CN, IL, JP, KR, MX, SG, and US.
and (2) a non-exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize related technology rights. The UTSW2 Agreement includes an exclusive license to issued US patent no. 12,097,213 (having an earliest expiration of March 12, 2041, not including any potential patent term adjustment). This patent is generally directed to methods of using THIO in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors.
On July 13, 2022, MAIA Biotechnology filed PCT/US23/70177, US 18/352,220, and TW 112126229, Dinucleotides and their use in treating cancer, for Dinucleotide compounds that target telomers in cancer cells and method for using the dinucleotide compounds in treating cancers alone and in combination with other anticancer-agents and therapies, such as in combination with checkpoint inhibitors and radiation therapy. Pending in AU, BR, CA, CH, EPO, KR, MX, JP, US, and TW.
On May 30, 2023, MAIA Biotechnology filed PCT/US2024/031754, Tumor Redox-Activated 6-Thiopurine containing dimer compounds, for 6-thiopurine containing compounds that target telomers in cancer cells and methods for using the compounds in treating cancers alone and in combination with other anticancer agents and therapies. Pending in PCT.
On October 22, 2024, MAIA Biotechnology and Regeneron filed PCT/US2024/052463, Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with 6-THIO-dG and Cemiplimab, that discloses the use of treating Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with 6-THIO-dG selected from three different doses followed by cemiplimab. Pending in PCT.
On October 29, 2024, MAIA Biotechnology filed PCT/US2024/053473, Telomere-Targeting Phosphatidyl-THIO Conjugates, for Telomere-targeting phosphatidyl-THIO conjugates that target telomers in cancer cells and methods for using the telomere-targeting phosphatidyl-THIO conjugates compounds to treat cancers. Pending in PCT.
We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategy as we develop new technologies and therapeutic candidates. As our business evolves, we may, among other activities, file additional patent applications in pursuit of our intellectual property acquisition and protection strategy, to adapt to competition or to seize potential opportunities.
Our Team
We have assembled an experienced management team with deep research, development, and commercialization experience in the areas of telomere-related science, immunotherapy, and across a vast array of oncology indications.
Key Team highlights:
• Our team is led by our Co-founder, Chief Executive Officer and President Vlad Vitoc. He is an M.D. and M.B.A. with over 25 years of experience in the Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology industries. He has served on leadership teams in various oncology companies and business units and has a track record of success at Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma Inc., Cephalon Inc. and Incyte Corporation, including development and commercialization of major oncology brands, organizational capability building, talent recruiting and development, and functional leadership.
• Our Chief Scientific Officer, Sergei M. Gryaznov, is a Ph.D. who is an internationally recognized scientist and expert in the areas of modern drug discovery and development, oncology, telomerase, immune-regulatory therapeutics, nucleosides, nucleotides, DNA and RNA analogues, lipid and other conjugates, small molecules and nucleic acid based therapeutic agents. He is the co-inventor of a novel telomere-by-telomerase-targeting therapeutic approach to potential cancer treatment and responsible for leading the research team that characterized THIO’s telomere targeting activity.
12
• Our Head of Finance and principal financial and accounting officer, Jeffrey Himmelreich, has extensive finance, accounting and public company reporting experience. Prior to his recent appointment, since September 2023, Mr. Himmelreich acted as the Company’s Director of Accounting and Financial Reporting, where he provided oversight for the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and other related financial, accounting or reporting matters. From July 2021 to September 2023, Mr. Himmelreich acted as the Chief Financial Officer of Microtech Knives, Inc., a private manufacturer of hand tools. Further, from December 2018 to July 2021, Mr. Himmelreich served as the Director of Finance and Accounting at Avadim Health Inc., a healthcare-related private company, during which time he assisted with SEC filings of Avadim Health Inc. for a proposed initial public offering. Mr. Himmelreich has a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Accounting from the Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and a Master of Business Administration from Pennsylvania State University.
We have engaged the following advisors, who are leading, internationally recognized experts in oncology, telomeres and telomerase research, to be a part of our Scientific Advisory Board (“SAB”), which provides independent non-binding scientific advice to our management team in the roles detailed below under each member’s name:
1. Tudor Ciuleanu, M.D., Ph.D. – Professor of Oncology (University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania)
• Top Key Opinion Leader (KOL) in NSCLC and CRC in Europe
• Key investigator in more than 90 phase 3 and Phase 2 clinical trials, including most immune therapy agents
• One of the best published clinical investigators (appears in most references in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines)
• President of Romanian Federation of Cancer Societies
• Editor for the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), Romanian edition
• On our SAB, will lead clinical activities in Europe across tumor types – NSCLC, CRC, Gastric, HCC, Head and Neck, Urological cancers, and Lymphomas
2. Jerry Shay, Ph.D. – Professor and Vice Chairman of the Department of Cell Biology (University of Texas Southwestern)
• One of the world leaders in the study of telomeres and telomerase
• Scientific co-founder of the research supporting our lead program THIO and an integral advisor to the program
• Highly influential biomedical researcher with over 30 issued patents and more than 500 peer reviewed publications
• Southland Financial Corporation Distinguished Chair in Geriatric Research and a Distinguish Professor at University of Texas Southwestern, having received the University of Texas Regent’s Outstanding Teaching Award and the Minnie Steven Piper Foundation Professor Award
• Awarded the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NIH Alliance Pioneer Award in 2017
• On our SAB, Dr. Shay will provide scientific leadership as the THIO co-inventor and a worldwide recognized expert in the science of telomeres and telomerase in cancer. Dr. Shay serves as the Chairman of the SAB.
3. David Ashley, M.D., Ph.D. – Professor of Neuro-Oncology (Duke University)
• Top KOL in pediatric and adult neuro-oncology
• Expert in translational research and clinical development
• Expert in immuno-oncology, having developed and clinically tested dendritic cell vaccines and other immuno-therapeutics
• Principal investigator of a number of important national and international studies, both clinical and pre-clinical
• Former Director of two major cancer centers, The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne and Andrew Love Cancer Centre – Barwon Health
• On our SAB, will assist in translational research in Brain Cancers for clinical development
13
4. Gunnur Dikmen, M.D., Ph.D. – Professor at Hacettepe University Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Biochemistry, as well as the director of the Hacettepe University hospital’s emergency laboratory
• Broad range of experimental and clinical experience in molecular & cell biology and clinical biochemistry, translating research results from bench to bedside and from academia to clinical laboratory to mentor the next generation of multidisciplinary research projects by providing new therapeutic approaches for cancer and telomere related diseases
• Expert in the biology of telomeres and telomerase in the treatment of cancer
• Under her capacity as Secretary-General of the Turkish Biochemical Society, organized various important national and international courses and congresses
• On our SAB, will assist in preclinical and translational research, across tumor types
5. Adam Yopp, M.D. – Associate Professor and Division Chief of Surgical Oncology and Colorectal Surgery, at Harold C. Simmons NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas
• Completed a fellowship in surgical oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center focusing on upper GI and hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy and joined UT Southwestern in 2009
• Director of the Liver Tumor Program at UTSW and both his research and clinical interests are focused on the delivery of care in patients with primary liver cancer
• Much-recognized key opinion leader in liver cancer
• On our SAB, will assist with developing THIO for the treatment of liver cancer
6. Remus Vezan, M.D., Ph.D. – Vice President, Global Clinical Development at BeiGene
• Completed his medical training (M.D. and Ph.D.) at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj, Romania and University of Bern, Switzerland
• Seasoned leader in drug development of novel therapeutic modalities, including cell and gene therapies, with over 20 years of academic and biopharmaceutical industry experience, and had a seminal contribution to the development and approval of multiple products, including TECARTUS®, YESCARTA® or IMBRUVICA®
• On our SAB, will assist in development and strategy for approval of THIO in multiple tumor types
7. Saadettin Kiliçkap, M.D., M.Sc – Faculty member at İstinye University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Türkiye
• Graduated from Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, completed his Internal Medicine specialty training at Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine. Completed the education programme of Medical Oncology at Hacettepe University Oncology Institute and the Cancer Epidemiology Thesis Master's Program at Hacettepe University Oncology Institute Preventive Oncology Department, granting him the title of “Master of Science”
• Received more than 20 oral presentations or best work awards at national congresses, has more than 240 scientific articles published in international peer-reviewed journals and more than 50 papers presented at international congresses. He took part as principle or sub-investigator in more than 50 national and international multicenter phase 2 and phase 3 clinical studies
• On our SAB, will assist in development and strategy for approval of THIO in multiple solid tumor types, including lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, and the gastrointestinal tract
Our SAB is primarily compensated by way of the grant of stock options as determined by the Company as appropriate in recognition of the specific services or areas of expertise of each member.
We are also supported by a seasoned board of directors, whose members have significant entrepreneurial skills in company building and corporate financing as well as decades of collective leadership and board experience.
14
Our Programs
Telomere Targeting Program
Targeting Telomeres via Telomerase Leads to Cancer Cell Death
Telomeres are regions of repetitive nucleotide sequences that are associated with specialized proteins at the ends of linear chromosomes, that represent a critical key therapeutic target for cancer. Telomeres are often depicted in imagery like the end of a shoelace.
• Maintenance of telomeres is essential for unlimited cellular proliferation and confers immortality in cancer cells. Telomeres in human cells consist of double-stranded and single-stranded repeats of the sequence TTAGGG, which terminate in a single-stranded 3´- extension overhang of the G-rich strand. Their major function is to cap and protect the ends of chromosomes and thus to provide genetic stability. This capping function is mediated by a special architecture in which the 3´- overhang participates with telomere-binding proteins in a large loop structure called T-loop. The image on the right reflects the general location of telomeres as the end-cap of the chromosomes, which are located in the nucleus of the cell.
Adapted from Transcendental Meditation and lifestyle modification increase telomerase , December 6, 2015.
The most successful anti-cancer drugs in the market today typically interfere with only one of the specific capabilities or “hallmarks” cancer cells use for tumor growth and progression. In contrast, our lead drug candidate, THIO, targets two major hallmark pathways:
• Targeting cancer cell telomeric DNA structure and functional integrity; and
• Activating the immune system that turns immunologically “cold” tumors into “hot” tumors that are responsive to therapy. THIO synergizes with immune activating agents, like checkpoint inhibitors, for the potential to attack and destroy tumors.
The chart below reflects the many different methods by which successful anti-cancer drugs might prevent tumor growth and where THIO stands in relation to the other approaches.
ch Pipeline - PLANNED STUDIES 2022 2023 2024 2025 THIOLung Cancer Colorectal Cancer Other Solid Tumors Ph 2 THIO-101 NSCLC-2L+US Accelerated approval (projected) Ph 3 TERT+ NSCLC-2L+ Ph 3 NSCLC-1LPh 2 THIO-102 TERT+ CRC-3L+ Pivotal. Ph 2 Ph 3 MSS CRC-1LPh 2 Basket TERT+ Tumors L3+Ph 3 Pivotal TBDSCLC HCC GBM Melanoma Pancreatic Ovarian Breast Prostate Ph 3 Pivotal TBD Preclinical US Potential IND
15
Adapted from Cell 2011, Volume 144, Issue 5, Pages 646-674 (DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013)
Role of the Enzyme Telomerase
Telomerase is a ribonucleoprotein enzyme (reverse transcriptase) that synthesizes telomere repeats from the beginning, or de novo . In human cells, the telomerase holoenzyme consists of a high-molecular-weight complex with a template region-containing RNA subunit, hTR, and a protein component, the catalytic subunit human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT). In most normal somatic cells, telomerase activity is absent and telomere repeats are lost with cell division and with aging. Telomerase is especially important in fetal tissues, reproductive cells and other tissues where extensive cell proliferation is necessary. However, most adult normal tissues are telomerase silent. Telomere attrition, beyond a certain threshold, results in the uncapping of chromosome ends, which subsequently induces DNA damage and onset of replicative senescence. In contrast, about 57% to 100% of all cancer cells in most tumor types have detectable telomerase activity, which leads to the stabilization of telomeres and allows for unlimited growth potential along with disease progression. Successful targeting of telomerase positive (TERT+) cancers represents a significant potential for therapeutic utilization in almost all tumor types.
Since most cancer cells are reliant on telomerase for their survival, and telomerase is undetectable or only transiently present at low levels in normal cells, telomeres of cancer cells and telomerase are attractive targets for the development of new cancer therapeutics. “Proof of Principle” for validation of telomere structural integrity-targeting as a therapeutic concept was demonstrated in vitro in human tumor cells using dominant negative mutant forms of hTERT. In these experiments, telomerase activity was abolished, which was associated with continuous telomere shortening, subsequently leading to the cancer cells death. Research has also indicated that cancer cell specific anti-telomeres and anti-telomerase therapies may have fewer side effects than more traditional treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. This has made anti-cancer therapies based on telomerase inhibition an area of interest in medicine. However, attempts to directly target telomerase in clinical trials have not yet produced an approved drug, as these efforts have encountered material limitations primarily due to increased toxicities that may result from the long lag period between initiation of anti-telomerase treatment and its therapeutic effects.
Differentiated Activity of THIO, a Telomere-Targeting Agent
THIO (6-thio-2’-deoxyguanosine or 6-thio-dG) is a small molecule telomere targeting agent that uses the enzyme telomerase for DNA integration predominantly in the telomeric structure. Based on pre-clinical studies, THIO’s telomere targeting activity is believed to be primarily cancer-specific in tumor cells with active telomerase, but not in normal cells. Based on our extensive review of publicly-available information, to our knowledge THIO’s direct telomere targeting action utilizing telomerase is different from other commercially available cancer therapies and those currently in publicly disclosed clinical trials. Telomeres, along with the enzyme telomerase, play a fundamental role in the survival of cancer cells and their resistance to current therapies. The statements above are not intended to give any indication that THIO has been proven effective or that it will receive regulatory approval.
In non-clinical studies, published initially in 2014 along with subsequent studies, THIO was found to be converted, in cells, into the substrate recognized by telomerase, and then incorporated into telomeres of the cancer cells. Once incorporated, THIO compromised the cancer cell’s telomere structure and function, leading to “uncapping” of the telomeres, induction of DNA damage responses, and rapid cancer cell death. These profound structural modifications of cancer cell telomeres were irreparable. In both in vitro and in vivo studies, THIO showed a very prompt effect, causing telomere uncapping and leading to cancer cell death , independent of the initial tumor telomere length.
16
The above graphic represents an established method of action from previously conducted research in rodents that forms the scientific rationale for further clinical studies.
In 2019, further non-clinical research in syngeneic and humanized mouse models of telomerase-expressing cancers uncovered previously unknown telomere targeting activity of THIO specifically resulting from its breakdown of cancer cells. The THIO-containing DNA fragments, resulting from THIO telomere disruption, are packed into micronuclei and are released from the treated cancer cell into the blood stream, which enhances immune responses. An immune response was observed, attributed to stimulation of the cGAS/STING pathways in the host APCs (Dendritic Cells, pDCs), as well as activation of NK cells and CD 8+ and CD 4+ lymphocytes in vivo . At the same time as the T-cells activation, THIO treatment reduced levels of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) in the tumor micro-environment (TME), which is considered important for an anticancer immune response. While THIO activated CD8+ T cells, it also increased the total number of CD8+ T cells and upregulated PD-1 expression in the CD8+ T cells on per cell basis in the mouse model. This research demonstrated how the THIO-produced telomere stress may have the potential to increase innate sensing and adaptive anti-tumor immunity. In short, this immune system stimulation and TME remodeling proceeded in a specific antigen-dependent manner and induced adaptive immune responses that eradicated remaining cancer cells in vivo .
The above noted recent studies in a humanized mouse model also supported the hypothesis that sequential administration of THIO followed by an anti-PD-L1type of checkpoint inhibitor may overcome resistance to checkpoint blockade in advanced cancer models, suggesting that the combination therapy could benefit PD-L1-resistant patients.
Administration of low doses of THIO, aimed to activate the immune system via THIO-induced telomeric DNA modification, followed by checkpoint inhibitor therapy (anti-PD-L1 or anti-PD1), eliminated advanced tumors in preclinical models with confirmation of cancer cell type specific immune memory. This potential for THIO to induce immune memory, if confirmed in human clinical trials, would be a distinct feature of THIO’s mechanism of action, offering the possibility that the immune system may continue to be active against the cancer cells over extended periods of time, potentially reducing the need for additional treatment.
These pre-clinical results provided the basis for our new clinical therapeutic strategy for sequentially administering THIO as a telomere-targeted agent first, to activate the immune system against the specific cancer, followed by immunotherapy or other immune-activating therapy.
Limitations of Other Therapeutic Approaches
In contrast to THIO, which targets telomeres, a challenge for the potential clinical application of pharmaceutically useful telomerase inhibitors (e.g., Imetelstat), is the therapeutic window (the range of dosage of a drug or of its concentration in a bodily system that provides safe effective therapy) and the often-observed delay between initiation of treatment and phenotypic response (called the “lag
17
period”). Since the antiproliferative effect of any direct telomerase inhibitor is dependent on the telomere length of any given tumor cell, clinical response will be delayed until the telomeres become critically short, and thus can no longer protect the chromosomes, and as a result, the cancer cell dies. This requires a significant number of cell divisions to become apparent, and treatment may have to be given continuously for weeks to months, potentially in conjunction with other treatment modalities, to achieve an appropriate level of efficacy.
THIO: A Telomere Targeting Agent
Background
THIO (6-thio-2’-deoxyguanosine) is a synthetically-modified small molecule nucleoside that was originally designed to be an improved chemotherapy drug developed to work around purine analog resistance, which was standard-of-care therapy in the 1970s. Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, THIO was extensively investigated in at least 19 clinical trials with over 600 cancer patient subjects (adult and pediatric) treated, both as monotherapy or in combination with other commonly used standard agents of the time. See “THIO Clinical Trials” below for more information about these trials. A traditional treatment strategy was used where patients were treated to maximum tolerated dose (MTD), a common approach for cancer therapy drug development. Although study results were promising, development was abandoned in favor of other therapies.
The previous human experience presents significant limitations as it dates to the 1970s and early 1980s when the implementation of ICH Good Clinical Practices was not yet in effect. The published studies did not disclose certain data points in line with the current ICH Good Clinical Practices, such as efficacy endpoints and serious adverse events, whether those endpoints were reached, whether the data was found to be statistically significant and serious adverse events. Further, we do not know whether those prior studies were powered for statistical significance in the way our planned studies will be powered, based generally on the results of these prior human studies, we believe that THIO has a well-established safety profile, which we intend to independently demonstrate through our own clinical studies. Moreover, all prior studies were conducted primarily in heavily pre-treated, refractory patients.
Further detailed analysis of the body of prior THIO research indicates researchers were not aware of three key factors, which if they had been known at the time, may have impacted the decision to cease development. These factors have only been discovered since 2014 (with the most recent in 2019), as illustrated in the following graphic:
1. THIO’s detailed telomere targeting mechanism and resulting immune activation.
2. At high drug exposure (MTD), THIO can be immunosuppressive.
3. Proper administration of THIO to activate the immune system followed by immunotherapy to achieve best response.
Telomeres are vital DNA-structures discovered by Jack Szostak’s laboratory, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 2009, which are present at the ends of each chromosome which protect the genome from degradation, unnecessary recombination, repair, and interchromosomal fusion. Telomeres, along with the enzyme telomerase, are both crucial for the survival of cancer cells. Telomerase was discovered by Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider, who shared the Nobel Prize with Jack Szostak in 2009.
THIO is believed to selectively target telomerase positive (TERT+) cancer cells, where the enzyme is activated, versus normal cells. 57% to 100% of primary human cancers are TERT+ dependent upon tumor type, indicating a significant potential therapeutic utilization for THIO in almost all tumor types. THIO’s cancer-specific disturbance of telomeric structure by telomerase leads to disruption in the cell cycle, followed by rapid cell death. Based on extensive review of publicly-available information, THIO’s direct telomere targeting action utilizing telomerase is different from other commercially available cancer therapies and those currently in publicly disclosed clinical trials.
In 2019, the MAIA research team showed that in mouse models THIO-produced telomere modification and disruption induced cancer-specific innate and adaptive immune response against immunologically “cold” or unresponsive tumor types. When THIO was administered at low doses, in syngeneic and humanized mouse models of telomerase-expressing cancers, followed by a break to allow for the activation of the immune system against the specific cancer, then followed by a standard-of-care immunotherapy agent like a check point inhibitor (CPI), either PD-1 or PD-L1, complete tumor regression was observed, with no observed toxicities. These effects have been replicated in multiple preclinical models, utilizing all leading checkpoint inhibitors or radiation therapy.
Based on these studies, we hypothesized that THIO, administered in advance of immune-activating therapies (e.g., checkpoint inhibitors, radiation therapy, etc.), at dose levels significantly lower than the levels evaluated in previous clinical trials, will “ prime” the tumor environment and initiate an overall anti-tumor immune response. This represents an entirely new therapeutic approach for THIO and forms the basis for the new clinical strategy for planned future trials.
18
THIO Preclinical Development
The following summarizes the relevant preclinical studies. Extensive preclinical studies have been performed to validate THIO’s primary mechanism of action: targeting telomeres directly and causing cancer cell death via telomerase-mediated DNA damage.
To our knowledge, THIO alone has shown significant telomere targeting activity in numerous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and multiple other cancer-based cell lines in vitro and in vivo , including but not limited to small cell lung cancer (SCLC), melanoma, colorectal cancer (CRC), glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), neuroblastoma, pancreatic, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as well as head and neck cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer.
In vitro : in summary, EC 50 values (the concentrations at which half of the total number of cancer cells are dead) were approximately 0.4 µM to 1.5 µM. THIO was not cytotoxic in normal, untransformed telomerase-negative cells at concentrations up to 100 µM.
In vivo : in summary, the doses that resulted in cancer cell death were in the range of 2.5 - 5.0 mg/kg, depending on the tumor type and the schedule of the drug administration ranging from 1 to 3 days per cycle.
In March 2022, the FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) to THIO for the treatment of HCC, in May 2022, the FDA granted the second ODD to THIO for the treatment of small cell lung cancer, and in late 2023, a third ODD for Malignant Gliomas Brain Cancer). The FDA’s Office of Orphan Products Development may grant orphan designation status to drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of rare diseases, or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S. ODD provides certain benefits, including financial incentives, to support clinical development and the potential for up to seven years of market exclusivity for the drug for the designated orphan indication in the U.S. if the drug is ultimately approved for its designated indication.
THIO in Sequential Administration in Advance of Checkpoint Inhibitors (CPIs) Therapy
In vivo , THIO, at 3 mg/kg/dose, (which corresponds to a 20 mg/patient/day low-dose), administered followed by a one-day break, followed by an immune checkpoint inhibitor (either anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) products), resulted in complete tumor regression in NSCLC and CRC syngeneic mouse tumor models.
At this low dose, THIO was able to transform immunologically “cold’ tumors, (tumors that do not respond to the CPI treatment), into immunologically “hot” tumors, which then responded well to the following sequential treatment with a CPI. These potent anti-tumor phenotypic effects were also accompanied by the efficient induction of the tumor-specific CD8+ cells, as well as CD4+, and natural killer (NK)-cells (Mender, 2020b).
These responses were achieved through telomerase-dependent and cancer cell specific activation of a) DNA damage responses, and b) cGAS/STING pathways by THIO. This body of research represents the basis for the new immune-activation treatment strategy.
The following represents key highlights from THIO preclinical research:
• THIO has been tested in multiple preclinical studies evaluating various tumor types in vitro including in lung, colorectal, prostate, breast, ovarian, head and neck, brain, melanoma, and liver cancer. THIO has also been tested in in vivo mouse models of lung, colorectal, brain, melanoma, liver and brain cancers. In the below graphic, the left panel depicts cancer cell colony formation in vitro assay results conducted with various types of telomerase positive cancers, namely prostate, breast, ovarian, colon, brain, head and neck. In the control column, cancer cells grew. In the second column, with the telomerase inhibitor BIBR, the cancer cells also grew. In the third column, in which the telomere targeting agent THIO was administered at a concentration of 2.5µM, cancer cell growth was visibly inhibited. In the fourth column, in which THIO was administered at a concentration of 5µM, cancer cells were also visibly inhibited. The same concentrations of THIO were also administered in vivo in rodent models (mice), caring tumors, derived from either brain, or liver, or melanoma, or neuroblastoma, or colorectal cancer cells were treated with THIO (at 2 mg/kg to 5 mg/kg doses), significant reduction in tumor masses resulting from the treatment with THIO was observed. Note that THIO’s activity seen in preclinical models has yet to be demonstrated in humans.
19
• THIO demonstrated potential to selectively cause cancer cell death with active enzyme telomerase versus normal cells in vitro . The below graphic illustrates formation of telomeric damage foci (TIFs) in telomerase activity-positive cancer cells, but not in normal non-cancerous cells, resulting from application of THIO. These data indicate molecular mechanism of THIO that targets telomeric DNA of cancer cells through their telomerase enzymatic activity. At the same time, normal cells, that are devoid of telomerase activity, are not affected by THIO.
Mender I. et al., Cancer Discovery (2015)
*TIF – telomere damages induced foci
*TRF2 – protein associated with telomeres
* Gamma-H2AX – protein associated with induction of DNA damage
*CRC – colorectal cancer
*hTERT – protein components of telomerase enzyme
• THIO, as a single agent, showed in vitro telomere targeting activity in cancer cells that are resistant to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), checkpoint inhibitors, IL-2, IFNα, YERVOY ® (ipilimumab) and a host of chemotherapies. The below graphic, in NSCLC and Melanoma models respectively, demonstrates in vivo telomere targeting activity of THIO in mice models of lung cancer, derived from PERC16 cells, and melanoma derived from WM4265 cells. Both cell lines are resistant to multiple standard-of-care drug compounds, as listed in the Figure legends.
20
*i.p. – intraperitoneal injection
*IL-2 – cytokine interleukin 2
*IFN-a – interferon alfa
• THIO was observed to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and inhibits tumor growth, inducing in-tumor telomere dysfunction and cancer cell death, in in vitro models of difficult to treat pediatric brain cancer, where no therapy exists. In the below graphic, this is shown through presence of Caspase-3 enzyme which is associated with cell death. Sengupta, S. et al. Induced telomere damage to treat telomerase expressing therapy-resistant pediatric brain tumors. Mol Cancer Therapeutics, 17(7): 1504-1514, 2018.
*TIF – telomere damage induced foci
*MB004 – brain cancer cell line
• THIO transformed “cold” tumors into “hot” tumors that were responsive to immunotherapy. THIO utilized a telomere targeting pathway that synergized with checkpoint inhibitors and other immune-activating therapies. The tumor-specific immune activation, resulting from THIO’s primary mode of action, overcame resistance to current check point inhibitor (CPI) standard-of-care therapy, as illustrated in the following Colorectal Cancer model. The below graphic demonstrates telomere targeting activity of THIO alone, and in sequential combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor (anti-PD-L1 compound, atezolizumab), in mice model of colorectal cancer, derived from MC-38 cells. Two doses of THIO are shown to control tumor growth while anti-PD-L1 agent. Sequential administration of THIO (2 days), followed by administration of the anti-PD-L1 agent, demonstrates disappearance of tumor cells.
21
• Immunological memory was observed in mouse models, where the immune system continued to be active against the specific treated tumor cell type for 100 days post-tumor inoculation. The below graphic demonstrates that the tumor-free animals that were treated with the sequential combination of THIO and anti-PD-L1 compound were followed for 70 days, with no observed tumor recurrence. Subsequently, animals were re-challenged with 10 times more MC38 cancer cells. Cancer growth was not observed in these animals, demonstrating induction of anti-tumor-protecting memory after sequential administration of THIO and anti-PD-L1 agent; ref: Mender, I., et al. Telomere stress potentiates STING-dependent anti-tumor immunity. Cancer Cell, 38,3, 400-411.E6, September 14, 2020.
Moreover, due to the cGAS/STING activation caused by THIO, telomere targeting activity was observed in numerous preclinical tumor models when THIO was administered followed by immune activating therapy such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD-L1 or anti-PD-1 antibody). A summary of the pharmacological aspects of the investigational product and, where appropriate, its significant metabolites studied in animals, should be included. Such a summary should incorporate studies that assess potential therapeutic activity (e.g. efficacy models, receptor binding, and specificity) as well as those that assess safety (e.g., special studies to assess pharmacological actions other than the intended therapeutic effect(s)). The results of all relevant nonclinical pharmacology, toxicology, pharmacokinetic, and investigational product metabolism studies should be provided in summary form. This summary should address the methodology used, the results, and a discussion of the relevance of the findings to the investigated therapeutic and the possible unfavourable and unintended effects in humans.
It is therefore hypothesized that THIO, administered in advance of immune-activating therapies (e.g., checkpoint inhibitors, radiation therapy, etc.), at dose levels significantly lower than the levels evaluated in previous clinical trials, will “ prime” the tumor
22
environment and initiate an overall anti-tumor immune response. If confirmed through additional clinical studies, this could represent an entirely new therapeutic approach for THIO and form the basis for the new clinical strategy for planned future trials.
THIO Clinical Trials
We plan to rely solely upon our self-generated clinical safety and efficacy data, if favorable, in support of our anticipated NDA filing for THIO. However, THIO, as a compound, was the subject of investigation in numerous clinical trials in the 1970s to the early-80s in a variety of solid tumors and hematological malignancies. The compound was evaluated in at least nineteen (19) Phase 1 to Phase 3 clinical trials with over 600 patients treated by major cancer institutions and cancer cooperative groups. THIO was studied in combination with common agents in use at the time, including methyl-CCNU or mitomycin, two widely used alkylating agents to treat a variety of cancers and leukemias. Studies utilizing THIO as a single agent have been published in peer-reviewed journals. As part of the existing data base of clinical experience with the drug, we expect to reference the older NCI studies in the public domain as well as reference NCI’s original IND filing in support of an IND filing, pursuant to FDA regulations.
The following tables summarize the THIO single agent peer-reviewed published data available from the previous clinical trials.
Phase 1
Study
Tumor Type
Regimen/Dose Schedule
Evaluable Subjects
Description of
Observed Adverse Events
Responses
C76-92
Pediatric Acute Leukemia who received prior
6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) or 6-thioguanine
THIO 200 to 2,250 mg/m 2 given every 12 hours for 3 doses every 2 weeks
Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined to be 1,750 mg/m 2 given every 12 hours for 3 doses every 2 weeks
31
Reversible urate nephropathy, elevations of liver enzymes, nausea and vomiting, alopecia, and skin reactions
Therapeutic Responses observed in 6/23 (26%) patients comprised of
2 complete responses and 4 partial responses
Source: Higgins, G. R., Jamin, D. C., Shore, N. A., Momparler, R., Hartman, G. and Siegel, S. E. (1985). “Phase I evaluation of beta-2'-deoxythioguanosine in pediatric patients with leukemia.” Cancer Treat Rep 69(6): 699-701t
Phase 2 – Single Agent Studies
Protocol
Tumor Type
Regimen/Dose
Schedule
Evaluable
Subjects
ORR
(Overall
Response)
PR
(Partial
Response)
CR
(Complete
Response)
Observed
Adverse Events
SEG-248
Total Patients
117
27 (23%)
11 (9%)
16 (14%)
Leukopenia
Thrombocytopenia
Skin rash
Alopecia (reversible)
Nausea and vomiting
Acute Myelocytic Leukemia (AML)
300 mg/m 2 daily for 5 days
17
4 (24%)
1 (6%)
3 (18%)
400 mg/m 2 daily for 5 days
49
10 (20%)
6 (12%)
4 (8%)
Blastic transformation of chronic myelogenous leukemai (BTL)
300 mg/m 2 daily for 5 days
11
3 (27%)
-
3 (27%)
400 mg/m 2 daily for 5 days
26
6 (23%)
3 (12%)
3 (12%)
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL)
300 mg/m 2 daily for 5 days
4
2 (50%)
-
2 (50%)
400 mg/m 2 daily for 5 days
10
2 (20%)
1 (10%)
1 (10%)
EST 4273 (ECOG)
Colorectal
(prior 5-FU chemotherapy)
THIO 100 mg/m 2 daily for 5 days every 3 weeks
vs
MeCCNU 175 mg/m 2
every 8 weeks
61
3 (5%)
3 (5%)
-
Leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting
55
5 (9%)
5 (9%)
-
Omura, G. A., Vogler, W. R., Smalley, R. V., Maldonado, N., Broun, G. O., Knospe, W. H., et al. (1977b). “Phase II Study of beta-2'-deoxythioguanosine in adult acute leukemia. (Study SEG-248)” Cancer Treat Rep 61(7): 1379-1381 Douglass, H. O., Jr., Lavin, P. T., Woll, J., Conroy, J. F. and Carbone, P. (1978). “Chemotherapy of advanced measurable colon and rectal carcinoma with oral 5-fluorouracil, alone or in combination with cyclophosphamide or 6-thioguanine, with intravenous 5-fluorouracil or beta-2'-deoxythioguanosine or with oral 3(4-methyl-cyclohexyl)-1(2-chlorethyl)-1-nitrosourea: A Phase II-III study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (EST 4273).” Cancer 42(6): 2538-2545
The previous human experience presents significant limitations as it dates to the 1970s and early 1980s when the implementation of ICH Good Clinical Practices was not yet in effect. The published studies did not disclose certain data points in line with the current ICH Good Clinical Practices, such as efficacy endpoints and serious adverse events, whether those endpoints were reached, whether the data was found to be statistically significant and serious adverse events. Further, we do not know whether those prior studies were powered for statistical significance in the way our planned studies will be powered. Based generally on the results of these prior
23
human studies, we believe that THIO has a well-established safety profile, which we intend to independently demonstrate through our own clinical studies. Moreover, all prior studies were conducted primarily in heavily pre-treated, refractory patients.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data provides substantial information on the clinical experience with and clinical profile of THIO with an exposure exceeding 600 subjects (adult and pediatric) at doses significantly higher than those intended for investigation in the current program and new treatment strategy. All studies were conducted in heavily pre-treated/refractory patients, most of whom were pre-treated with other standards of care including chemotherapy.
To date, THIO has not received marketing approval in any country; therefore, there is no marketing experience to be reported.
The planned clinical trials will assess a novel THIO therapeutic strategy: - evaluate the safety and efficacy of low potentially immunogenic doses of THIO administered to activate the immune system against the tumor to be treated, followed by standard-of-care immunotherapy (checkpoint inhibitor) or other immune activating therapies.
THIO Developmental Initiatives and Objectives
Phase 2 and 3 Programs
Our primary short-term objective is to assess this approach in a Proof-of-Concept study outlined below.
This first study is a dose-finding, Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating both safety and efficacy of THIO sequenced with cemiplimab in patients with advanced non-small lung cancer (NSCLC) who progressed or showed no clinical benefit to first line treatment containing an immune checkpoint inhibitor. This trial, designated as THIO-101 study is our first human clinical trial to test the immune system activation demonstrated in preclinical animal models: lower doses of THIO administered prior to a checkpoint inhibitor treatment reverses drug resistance, enhance and prolong immune responses in patients with advanced lung cancer who did not respond or progressed after a prior cancer treatment which contained another immune checkpoint inhibitor.
The trial design has two primary objectives: (1) safety of THIO administered as a priming immune system agent prior to cemiplimab administration and (2) clinical efficacy of THIO using Overall Response Rate (ORR) as the primary clinical endpoint. An expansion arm has been amended to the trial protocol on December 2024 to further assess the efficacy of THIO in combination with cemiplimab in third-line NSCLC patients who are resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors.
The following chart sets forth the design of the THIO-101 trial:
This “dose-finding” trial is designed to assess the safety, mechanism of activity, and immune system activation of three THIO doses tested out in separate arms administered in parallel. Each dosing arm will be further evaluated for efficacy based on Overall Response Rate (ORR), Duration of Response (DoR) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) to determine to optimal (safe and effective) dose of THIO administered in sequence with cemiplimab. Subsequently, we expect to target earlier lines of therapy (1 st line) in a pivotal Phase 3 confirmatory studies in NSCLC. As of February 2024, dose selection and enrollment had been completed, but monitoring and assessment of dosed subjects are ongoing as patients continue to with the postbaseline scans and data matures. As of February 2025,
24
the expansion arm to further assess the efficacy of the treatment with THIO sequenced with cemiplimab is planned to start enrolling new patients in Q1 2025, in select countries in Asia, Europe and in the US.
In an effort to obtain FDA and/or EMEA approval of THIO in combination with other standard of care approved cancer immunotherapies, we will have to conduct head-to-head studies which will compare standard of care treatment alone to standard of care treatment combined with THIO. In such studies, we would have to show that THIO added to standard of care therapies adds a significant treatment benefit by slowing down tumor progression and increasing the overall survival of the cancer patients.
In addition, we are actively evaluating other regulatory strategies and pathways that have the potential to accelerate and/or expand the study of THIO administered in sequence with an immune-checkpoint inhibitor in other solid tumor indications.
In the event THIO demonstrates early clinical efficacy, we plan to expand our clinical development program in multiple tumor types and assess several regulatory approval pathways utilizing our other development programs. The clinical development plan includes the initiation of an additional “basket trial” in multiple cancer types. This study uses a special design which allows different cancer indications to be studied under the same single trial umbrella. Some of the indications considered are:
• colorectal cancer (CRC)
• hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC)
• small-cell lung cancer (SCLC)
• melanoma
• breast cancer
• pancreatic cancer
• glioblastoma multiforme (GBM)
• ovarian cancer
• prostate cancer
Ultimately, we envision positioning THIO as the foundational priming treatment for all immune-activating agents over time based upon THIO’s tumor-specific immune-activation approach that enables key clinical strategies that could dramatically expand the immunotherapy market.
Second Generation of Telomere Targeting Agents
We have initiated an early-stage research and discovery program aimed at identifying new compounds capable of acting through the same mechanism of action as THIO, such as targeting and modifying telomeric structures of cancer cells through cancer-cell intrinsic telomerase activity. The main objective for this program is to discover compositionally new compounds with potentially improved specificity towards cancer cells relative to normal cells, and to assess telomere targeting activity in comparison with THIO. This program may also allow us to strengthen our patent portfolio. Although the program is in early stages and we may not be able to identify suitable compounds, we believe we will be able to create or discover a second generation of THIO-like compounds.
Strategic Collaborations and Key Agreements
Through our licensing agreements with The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (“UTSW”), we have commercial rights to certain U.S. patents, as well as their foreign counterparts, for the use of THIO in treating telomerase-expressing lung and colon cancer cells. We are currently using this technology to study a treatment regimen comprising the use of THIO treatment followed by cemiplimab treatment in NSCLC. In addition, we have licensed a number of pending U.S. and foreign patent applications from UTSW directed to other indications, and we are continuing to pursue discussions with several companies to develop other treatment regimens using THIO for additional cancer indications.
Clinical Supply Agreement with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
In 2021, we entered into a Clinical Supply Agreement with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron) to supply cemiplimab for the THIO-101 study. Regeneron will contribute the drug supply without cost, which represents a significant direct cost savings for our program. In exchange, Regeneron will receive development exclusivity for NSCLC indication during the study period, which means that MAIA cannot study THIO in NSCLC with any other PD-1 antagonist (a product sub-class of immune checkpoint inhibitors). All other tumor types remain open, and we are in discussions with other pharmaceutical companies to evaluate additional agreements that may be appropriate to support the expanded development of THIO. The supply agreement will remain in force until all of the obligations of the parties’ related to the studies contemplated by the agreement are completed, or until terminated by either party. The agreement may be terminated in the event of unsafe use of cemiplimab, material breach, regulatory action or corruption. On December 3, 2024, we announced the amendment of the 2021 clinical supply agreement with Regeneron for the expansion portion of THIO-101, its Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating THIO in sequential administration with cemiplimab (Libtayo®). The new expansion will further
25
assess the efficacy of MAIA’s lead asset, THIO, sequenced with immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) Libtayo® (cemiplimab) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving third-line therapy who were resistant to previous checkpoint inhibitor treatments and chemotherapy. The original 2021 agreement between MAIA and Regeneron was designed to supply the original THIO-101 trial through the dose selection and safety evaluation process.
In December 2024, we entered into a Clinical Supply Agreement with BeiGene, Ltd (BeiGene) to supply tislelizumab for the upcoming THIO-102 studies in HCC, CRC and SCLC. BeiGene will receive development exclusivity for HCC, CRC and SCLC indications during the study period, which means that MAIA cannot study THIO in HCC, CRC or SCLC with any other PD-1 antagonist (a product sub-class of immune checkpoint inhibitors). All other tumor types remain open, and we are in discussions with other pharmaceutical companies to evaluate additional agreements that may be appropriate to support the expanded development of THIO. The supply agreement will remain in force until all of the obligations of the parties’ related to the studies contemplated by the agreement are completed, or until terminated by either party. The agreement may be terminated in the event of unsafe use of tislelizumab, material breach, regulatory action or corruption.
In addition, our management believes that strong partnership interest will develop from other pharmaceutical companies who have checkpoint inhibitor franchises or those with cancer immunotherapy interest. We expect to continue discussions with several companies that have expressed interest and plan to expand discussions to capitalize on these opportunities. The checkpoint inhibitor market is large, and our goal is to ultimately position THIO as the foundational priming treatment to be used prior to all checkpoint inhibitors.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center License Agreement 1
On December 8, 2020, we entered into an amended and restated agreement (of our prior November 29, 2018 agreement) with The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System on behalf of The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (collectively, UTSW). Pursuant to the amended and restated agreement, which we refer to as the UTSW1 Agreement, we obtained (1) an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize the following UTSW patent families generally directed to methods of using THIO (below) and (2) a non-exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize related technology rights.
Title / PCT Application Number
Telomerase Mediated Telomere Altering Compounds / PCT/US2014/33330 (WO2014/168947), issued in the US (patent no. 10,463,685), CA, MX, NZ and RU (all method of use) pending in BR, EPO (received an Intent to Grant), HK and SG.
6-Thio-2'-Deoxyguanosine (6-Thio-dG) Results in Telomerase Dependent Telomere Dysfunction and Cell Death in Various Models of Therapy-Resistant Cancer Cells /
PCT/US2017/34706 (WO2017/205756), pending in the US (method of use), CA, and EPO.
Use of 6-thio-dG to Treat Therapy-Resistant Telomerase positive Pediatric Brain Tumors /
PCT/US2019/023596 (WO2019/183482), pending in the US (method of use)
Treatment of Drug Resistant Proliferative Diseases with Telomerase Mediated Telomere Altering Compounds issued in the US patent no. 12,070,472 (method of use) and pending in the U.S. (18,781,413).
Under the UTSW1 Agreement, we agreed to pay UTSW a minimal license fee, deferred license fees, milestone fees, and running royalties beginning on the first net sale (among others). For additional details regarding our relationship with UTSW, see the section entitled “ Business — Intellectual Property —License Agreement 1 with The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System / The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. ” The UTSW1 Agreement includes an exclusive license to US patent no. 10,463,685 (expires April 8, 2034), and US patent no. 12,070,472 (having an earliest expiration of March 23, 2037), and 16,982,979 (having an earliest expiration of March 22, 2039, if a patent is granted).
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center License Agreement 2
On December 23, 2020, we entered into a second agreement with The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System on behalf of The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, which set forth the agreement between the parties pursuant to the Company exercising its option rights in the UTSW1 Agreement and obtaining additional license rights. Pursuant this second license with UTSW, which we refer to as the UTSW2 Agreement, we obtained (1) an exclusive, worldwide license to develop and commercialize the following UTSW patent family (below) and (2) a non-exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize related technology rights.
Title / PCT Application Number
Sequential Treatment of Cancers Using 6-Thio-dG and Checkpoint Inhibitors issued in the US, EP (validated in AL, AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HU,
26
IE, IS, IT, LI, LT, LU, MC, MK, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SI, SK, SM, TR), and RU (method of use), pending in AU, BR, CA, CN, IL, JP, KR, MX, SG, and US.
Under the UTSW2 Agreement, we agreed to pay UTSW a minimal license fee, deferred license fees, milestone fees, and running royalties beginning on the first net sale (among others). For additional details regarding our relationship with UTSW, see the section entitled “ Business — Intellectual Property —License Agreement 2 with The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System / The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center .” The UTSW2 Agreement includes an exclusive license to pending US patent application no. 17/200,539 (having an earliest expiration of March 12, 2041, if a patent is granted).
THIO Program
License Agreement 1 with The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System /The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
On December 8, 2020 (the “Effective Date”), we entered into an amended and restated agreement (of our prior November 29, 2018 agreement) with The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System on behalf of The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, (collectively, UTSW) to develop and commercialize certain UTSW owned and/or controlled patents and related technology directed to methods of using THIO (“the UTSW1 Agreement”). The license is exclusive as to worldwide Patent Rights for all uses in the Field, which is defined as all therapeutic, prophylactic and diagnostic fields of use for all indications, including discovery and development uses. The license is sublicensable with prior UTSW written approval consistent with the terms of UTSW1 Agreement.
The UTSW1 Agreement includes an exclusive license to the “Patent Rights” of the worldwide patent families including all provisional applications and any divisionals, continuations, continuations-in-part and foreign counterpart applications that are entitled to claim priority thereto, and any patents resulting therefrom, of the following:
Title / PCT Application Number
Telomerase Mediated Telomere Altering Compounds / PCT/US2014/33330 (WO2014/168947), issued in the US (patent no. 10,463,685), CA, MX, NZ and RU (all method of use) pending in BR, EPO (received an Intent to Grant), HK and SG.
6-Thio-2'-Deoxyguanosine (6-Thio-dG) Results in Telomerase Dependent Telomere Dysfunction and Cell Death in Various Models of Therapy-Resistant Cancer Cells /
PCT/US2017/34706 (WO2017/205756), pending in the US (method of use), CA, and EPO.
Use of 6-thio-dG to Treat Therapy-Resistant Telomerase positive Pediatric Brain Tumors /PCT/US2019/023596 (WO2019/183482), pending in the US (method of use)
Treatment of Drug Resistant Proliferative Diseases with Telomerase Mediated Telomere Altering Compounds / PCT/US2017/023858 (WO/2017/165675), issued in the US (patent no. 12,070,472) (method of use).
The UTSW1 Agreement also grants the Company a non-exclusive worldwide license under the Technology Rights to develop, manufacture, have manufactured, distribute, have distributed, use, offer for Sale, Sell, lease, loan and/or import Licensed Products in the Field, wherein Technology Rights means Licensor’s rights in technical information, know-how, processes, procedures, compositions, devices, methods, formulas, protocols, techniques, designs, drawings or data created before the Effective Date by Inventors at UTSW which are necessary or reasonably useful for practicing Patent Rights.
The UTSW1 Agreement also grants the Company the first right to negotiate an exclusive license under any patent rights covering or claiming any improvement, which is any patentable invention and is conceived or reduced to practice solely by Dr. Jerry Shay or those under his direct supervision at UTSW within 3 years of the Effective Date, under certain conditions.
The term of the UTSW1 Agreement begins on the Effective Date and continue until the earliest of: (i) termination pursuant to the UTSW1 Agreement, (ii) the last date of expiration or termination of the Patent Rights; or (iii) if Technology Rights are licensed and no Patent Rights are applicable, twenty (20) years after the Effective Date. The Company may terminate the UTSW1 Agreement for convenience, at any time prior by providing ninety (90) days’ written notice to UTSW. UTSW may terminate the UTSW1 Agreement if the Company (i) becomes in arrears in any payments due, and fails to make the required payment within 30 days after delivery of written notice from UTSW, (ii) is in breach of any material non-payment provision, and does not cure such breach within 60 days after delivery of written notice, (iii) UTSW delivers notice to the Company of three or more actual breaches in any 12-month period, even in the event that the Company cures such breaches in the allowed period, (iv) becomes insolvent or bankrupt, then termination is immediate.
27
UTSW and/or the co-owners of certain patents have reserved the right to publish the scientific findings related to the Patent Rights and use and to permit other academic institutions to use the licensed subject matter for teaching, research, education, and other education-related, non-commercial purposes. The Patent Rights are also subject to any rights of the United States federal, state and/or local Government(s), as well as nonprofit entities, if certain patents or technologies were created in the course of Government-funded or non-profit entity-funded research.
Pursuant to the UTSW1 Agreement, the Company paid to UTSW a nominal one-time upfront license fee. The Company is also obligated to pay all accrued patent expenses as well as ongoing patent expenses on a scheduled basis tied to Company fund-raising through Series A funding until Company has reimbursed all patent expenses. In the event that the Company assigns the agreement to a third party, the Company is obligated to pay UTSW an assignment fee in the mid-six figures within 15 days of such assignment. The agreement cannot be assigned without UTSW’s consent.
Under the UTSW1 Agreement, the Company is obligated to use diligent efforts to bring licensed products to market through a funded, ongoing and active research and development, manufacturing, regulatory, marketing or sales program (all as commercially reasonable) and provide semi-annual reports to UTSW on its progress. The Company is also obligated to pay agreed upon milestone payments to UTSW. Failure of the Company to fulfill these obligations may be treated as a material breach by UTSW.
The only milestones that require payments under the UTSW1 Agreement include: (i) first commercial sale in the U.S. of licensed product for treating an oncology indications ; (ii) first commercial sale in the U.S. of licensed product for treating a non-oncology indications; (iii) first time aggregate Net Sales (as defined in the UTSW1 Agreement) of licensed product for treating an oncology indications exceeds low-nine figure sales in a contract year; (iv) first time aggregate Net Sales of licensed product for treating a non-oncology indications exceeds low nine-figure sales in a contract year; (v) first time aggregate Net Sales of licensed product for treating an oncology indications exceeds low ten-figure sales in a contract year; (vi) first time aggregate Net Sales of licensed product for treating a non-oncology indications exceeds low ten-figure sales in a contract year. There are no milestone payments required on any development or regulatory milestones. The only required milestone payments under the UTSW1 Agreement related to commercial sales milestones, and the aggregate amount of milestone fees payable pursuant to the UTSW1 Agreement will not exceed $112 million.
The Company will also pay UTSW running royalties on a yearly basis as a percentage of Net Sales of the Company or its sublicensee. There are single digit royalty rates for licensed products and licensed services covered by a Valid Claim (as defined in UTSW1 Agreement) and dependent on whether Net Sales are greater than or less than/equal to low ten figures of sales, with Net Sales above that amount commanding a slightly higher percentage. In each case, the royalty percentage is lower before patent issuance in each jurisdiction. In the event that the licensed product or licensed service is not covered by a Valid Claim, the running royalty rates are reduced by a certain percentage. The royalty obligations continue on a country-by-country basis until the later of expiration of the last Valid Claim in each country or ten (10) years after the First Commercial Sale (as defined in UTSW1 Agreement) in each country. In the event that the Company or its sublicensee challenges the Patent Rights, then the Company will be obligated to pay multiples of the applicable royalty rate of the Net Sales and, should the outcome of such challenge determine that any claim of the Patent Rights challenged is both valid and infringed then the Company will pay royalties at the rate of multiples of the applicable royalty rate of the Net Sales sold thereafter and reimburse UTSW for all fees and costs associated with defending such challenge, including attorney’s fees and expert fees.
The UTSW1 Agreement also contains an anti-stacking provision pursuant to which in the event the Company or its sublicensee pays royalties or other payments to a third party who owns or controls intellectual property deemed necessary to develop, manufacture, have manufactured, distribute, have distributed, use, lease, loan, import, offer for sale and/or sell any licensed products and licensed services, the Company may reduce payments to UTSW by a certain percentage of the royalty, milestone or other payments paid to such third party. However, such adjustment in royalty payments to UTSW may not be reduced by more than a certain percentage of the royalty obligation in any contract year. In the event that the payment to the third party who owns or controls intellectual property deemed necessary to extend or expand the franchise or exclusivity of a previously launched licensed product (e.g., such as a new formulation as a second generation product containing the same compound as the previously launched Licensed Product), then the Company may reduce payments to UTSW by a certain percentage of the royalty, milestone or other payments paid to such third party. However, such adjustment in royalty payments to UTSW may not be reduced below a certain percentage of the royalty obligation in any contract year.
UTSW maintains direct control over the prosecution and maintenance activities of the Patent Rights, and the Company is obligated to reimburse past and ongoing patent expenses as noted above. UTSW will permit the Company to comment on submissions to government patent agencies, during prosecution and will consider the Company’s comments, but UTSW retained control over all final decisions.
The UTSW1 Agreement contains a representation that UTSW has the rights and authority to grant to Company the licensed rights and is to its knowledge unaware of any third-party infringer or any infringement of third-party intellectual property rights. The UTSW1
28
Agreement also requires the Company to indemnify UTSW and other related parties against any liabilities, damages, causes of action, suits, judgments, liens, penalties, fines, losses, costs and expenses arising out of any product the Company produces under the UTSW1 Agreement, and requires the Company, beginning with the earlier of the first clinical trial or commercial sale or other commercialization, to obtain liability insurance.
The Company will have the first and sole right but not the obligation, at its own expense, to initiate an infringement suit or other appropriate actions against third party infringers and monetary recovery received therefrom, after the Company is reimbursed for expenses in enforcing the Patent Rights, is shared between the Company and UTSW pursuant to a good faith negotiation between the parties at that time. If the Company does not file suit within six months after a written request by UTSW, then UTSW may bring suit to enforce any Patent Right and retain all recoveries from such enforcement. If UTSW pursues such infringement action, it may, as part of the resolution of such efforts, grant nonexclusive license rights to the alleged infringer notwithstanding Licensee’s exclusive license rights.
In accordance with the terms of the UTSW1 Agreement, on April 24, 2020 Company sublicensed all Company rights and obligations under the UTSW1 Agreement to Company affiliate THIO Therapeutics, Inc.
License Agreement 2 with The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System /The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
On December 23, 2020 (the “Effective Date”), we entered into a second agreement with The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System on behalf of The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, (collectively, UTSW), which set forth the agreement between the parties pursuant to the Company exercising its option rights in the UTSW1 Agreement and obtaining additional license rights (“the UTSW2 Agreement”). The license is exclusive as to worldwide Patent Rights for all uses in the Field, which is defined as all therapeutic, prophylactic and diagnostic fields of use for all indications, including discovery and development uses. The license is sublicensable with prior UTSW written approval consistent with the terms of UTSW2 Agreement.
The UTSW2 Agreement includes an exclusive license to the “Patent Rights” of the worldwide patent family including all provisional applications and any divisionals, continuations, continuations-in-part and foreign counterpart applications that are entitled to claim priority thereto, and any patents resulting therefrom, of the following
Title / PCT Application Number
Sequential Treatment of Cancers Using 6-Thio-dG and Checkpoint Inhibitors / PCT/US2021/022090, issued in the US, EPO, and RU (method of use), pending in AU, BR, CA, CN, IL,JP, KR, MX, SG, and US.
The UTSW2 Agreement also grants the Company a non-exclusive worldwide license under the Technology Rights to develop, manufacture, have manufactured, distribute, have distributed, use, offer for Sale, Sell, lease, loan and/or import Licensed Products in the Field, wherein Technology Rights means UTSW’s rights in technical information, know-how, processes, procedures, compositions, devices, methods, formulas, protocols, techniques, designs, drawings or data created before the Effective Date by inventors at UTSW which are necessary or reasonably useful for practicing Patent Rights.
The terms of the UTSW2 Agreement are similar in many respects to those set forth in the UTSW1 Agreement. Pursuant to the UTSW2 Agreement, the Company paid to UTSW a nominal one-time upfront license fee. The UTSW2 Agreement recognizes the accrual of low five-figures in patent expenses relative to the Patent Rights of this agreement and provides for deferral of this fee and related ongoing patent expense fees on a schedule connected to the Company’s fundraising through Series A funding. Once the Company has raised mid seven-figures, the patent expense fees are be paid in full for all patent expenses incurred by UTSW for the Company’s licensed technologies which accrued between December 12, 2019, and the date at which the mid seven-figures has been raised. Until the Company has reimbursed all patent expenses it is obligated to report its fundraising progress to UTSW on a quarterly basis.
The milestone payments are the same as in the UTSW1 Agreement wherein the milestone fees are based solely on commercial sales milestones and are payable one time only, regardless of the number of licensed products or licensed services developed and regardless of the number of indications or patient sub-populations treated with a licensed product(s) and regardless of whether the licensed products or licensed services developed are within the rights granted by the UTSW1 Agreement or the UTSW2 Agreement. In other words, there are no milestone payments required on any development, or regulatory milestones under the UTSW1 Agreement or the UTSW2 Agreement. The only required milestone payment under the UTSW1 Agreement or the UTSW2 Agreement relate to commercial sales milestones and the aggregate amount of milestone fees payable pursuant to the UTSW1 Agreement or the UTSW2 Agreement will not exceed $112 million. In the event the Company assigns the UTSW2 Agreement to a third party, the Company is obligated to pay UTSW low six-figures within 15 days of such assignment, which is cumulative of the UTSW1 Agreement assignment fee, such that if both agreements are assigned to a third party, a total of high six-figures would be owed to UTSW. The agreement cannot be assigned without UTSW’s consent.
29
The Company will also pay UTSW running royalties on a yearly basis as a percentage of Net Sales of the Company or its sublicensee. There are mid-single digit royalty rates for licensed products and licensed services covered by a Valid Claim (as defined in UTSW2 Agreement) and dependent on whether Net Sales are greater than or less than/equal to low ten-figures in sales, with Net Sales above that amount commanding a slightly higher percentage. In each case, the royalty percentage is lower before patent issuance in each jurisdiction. In the event that the licensed product or licensed service is not covered by a Valid Claim, the running royalty rates are reduced by a certain percentage. The royalty obligations continue on a country-by-country basis until the later of expiration of the last Valid Claim in each country or ten (10) years after the First Commercial Sale (as defined in UTSW2 Agreement) in each country. In the event that the Company or its sublicensee challenges the Patent Rights, then the Company will be obligated to pay multiple times the applicable royalty rate of the Net Sales and, should the outcome of such challenge determine that any claim of the Patent Rights challenged is both valid and infringed then the Company will pay royalties at the rate of multiple times the applicable royalty rate of the Net Sales sold thereafter and reimburse UTSW for all fees and costs associated with defending such challenge, including attorney’s fees and expert fees.
The UTSW2 Agreement also contains an anti-stacking provision pursuant to which in the event the Company or its sublicensee pays royalties or other payments to a third party who owns or controls intellectual property deemed necessary to develop, manufacture, have manufactured, distribute, have distributed, use, lease, loan, import, offer for sale and/or sell any licensed products and licensed services, the Company may reduce payments to UTSW by a certain percentage of the royalty, milestone or other payments paid to such third party. However, such adjustment in royalty payments to UTSW may not be reduced by more than a minimum percentage of the royalty obligation in any contract year. In the event that the payment to the third party who owns or controls intellectual property deemed necessary to extend or expand the franchise or exclusivity of a previously launched licensed product (e.g., such as a new formulation as a second-generation product containing the same compound as the previously launched Licensed Product), then the Company may reduce payments to UTSW by a certain percentage of the royalty, milestone or other payments paid to such third party. However, such adjustment in royalty payments to UTSW may not be reduced by more than a certain percentage obligation in any contract year.
The Company has the development and reporting obligations as the UTSW1 Agreement and as with the UTSW1 Agreement, UTSW has reserved the right to publish the scientific findings related to the Patent Rights and use and to permit other academic institutions to use the licensed subject matter for teaching, research, education, and other educationally related, non-commercial purposes. The Patent Rights are also subject to any rights of the United States federal, state and/or local Government(s), as well as nonprofit entities, if certain patents or technologies were created in the course of Government-funded or non-profit entity-funded research.
The obligations and rights as to patent prosecution and defense of the Patent Rights are the same as those for the UTSW1 Agreement. The term and termination provisions of the UTSW2 Agreement is the same as the UTSW1 Agreement, however in the event that the UTSW1 Agreement is terminated for any reason, or expires, then the UTSW2 Agreement likewise is terminated or deemed to have expired.
The above description of UTSW1 Agreement and UTSW2 Agreement is just a summary and readers are referred to UTSW1 Agreement and UTSW2 Agreement, which are attached hereto as Exhibits 10.2 and 10.3 respectively, for a full and complete description of the patent expenses, milestone payments, fees and royalties payable by MAIA.
Some of our intellectual property, including the intellectual property licensed under UTSW1 and UTSW2, has been conceived or developed through government-funded research and thus may be subject to federal regulations providing for certain rights for the U.S. government or imposing certain obligations on us, such as a license to the U.S. government under such intellectual property, “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies, and compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers. See Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property - Intellectual property discovered through government funded programs may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.
Competition
The biotechnology industry is characterized by a rapid evolution of technologies, significant competition and strong defense of intellectual property. While we believe that our platforms, technology, knowledge, experience, and scientific resources provide us with unique competitive advantages, we expect to face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions, among others.
Any therapeutic candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with currently approved therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. For example, current competitors in the non-small lung cancer indication are Merck, Regeneron, Eli Lilly and Roche. There are also many other large and small companies developing products for this indication. Key product features that, if approved, would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety
30
and convenience of our therapeutics, the ease of use and effectiveness of any complementary diagnostics and/or companion diagnostics, and price and levels of reimbursement.
Our competitors also include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, which may be developing therapeutic candidates with mechanisms similar to our compounds or targeting the same clinical indications as our therapeutic candidates. The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our therapeutic candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.
Many of the companies against which we may compete 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. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These early stage and more established competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.
Government Regulation
Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. Any pharmaceutical candidate that we develop must be approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, before it may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before it may be legally marketed in foreign countries.
United States Government Regulation
In the United States, the FDA regulates biopharmaceutical products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Services Act, or PHSA, and implementing regulations.
Approval Processes
The process required by the FDA before a drug or biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
• Completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies according to Good Laboratory Practices or other applicable regulations;
• Submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug Application, or an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
• Performance of several phases of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s current good clinical practices, or GCPs, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug or biologic for its intended use;
• Submission to the FDA of a New Drug Application, or an NDA, for a new drug product, or a Biologics License Application, or a BLA, for a new biological product;
• Satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug or biologic is to be produced to assess compliance with the FDA’s current good manufacturing practice standards, or cGMP, to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s or biologic’s identity, strength, quality and purity;
• Potential FDA audit of the nonclinical and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA or BLA; and
• FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA.
Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development or approval process, or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice, or DOJ, or other governmental entities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on us. These sanctions could include:
• refusal to approve pending applications;
• withdrawal of an approval;
• imposition of a clinical hold;
• warning or untitled letters;
• seizures or administrative detention of product;
31
• total or partial suspension of production or distribution; or
• injunctions, fines, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties.
The lengthy process of seeking required approvals and the continuing need for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial resources. There can be no certainty that approvals will be granted.
Once a biopharmaceutical candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical or nonclinical testing stage. Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some nonclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. In addition to including the results of the nonclinical studies, the IND will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated if the first phase lends itself to an efficacy determination. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, places the IND on clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin. A clinical hold may occur at any time during the life of an IND and may affect one or more specific studies or all studies conducted under the IND.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the drug or biological candidate to healthy volunteers or patients having the disease being studied under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s good clinical practices requirements. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until it is completed.
Human clinical trials prior to approval are typically conducted in three sequential Phases that may overlap or be combined:
• Phase 1. The drug or biologic is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients having the specific disease.
• Phase 2. The drug or biologic is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule for patients having the specific disease.
• Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials, which usually involve more subjects than earlier trials, are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling. Generally, at least two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of an NDA or BLA.
Post-approval studies, or Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and may be required by the FDA as part of the approval process.
Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA by the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing
32
quality batches of the drug or biological candidate and, among other things, must include methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug or biologic. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug or biological candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
U.S. Review and Approval Processes
The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug or biologic, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA or BLA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances.
The FDA reviews for completeness all NDAs and BLAs submitted before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting an NDA or BLA for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA or BLA.
After the NDA or BLA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the application to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. In addition to its own review, the FDA may refer applications for novel drug or biological products or drug or biological products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the approval process, the FDA also will determine whether special marketing conditions or restrictions under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, are necessary to assure the safe use of the drug or biologic. If the FDA concludes that a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without a REMS, if required.
Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is to be manufactured, and may also inspect facilities that provide raw materials for use in the product. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure their compliance with cGCP during the conduct of studies of the subject drug. If during the review of the application the FDA identifies questions or concerns regarding the application, data, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities, it may issue a deficiency letter which the sponsor must adequately address to the FDA’s satisfaction.
The NDA or BLA review and approval process is lengthy and difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA or BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical data or other data and information. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA or BLA does not, in its submitted form, satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The FDA will issue a “complete response letter” (CRL) if the agency decides not to approve the NDA or BLA. The complete response letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA or BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter will typically include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA or BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.
If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be for more limited conditions of use than the sponsor had proposed, such as limitations to specific diseases or subsets of a disease, limited patient populations, second-line or third-line use limitations, limited dosages or other limitations which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may require Phase 4 testing which may involve clinical trials designed to further assess a product’s safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.
Companion Diagnostics
Many drugs for cancer indications involving patient-specific genetic mutations or biomarkers are approved by FDA with limitations that the specific genetic mutation must be confirmed in each patient by use of an FDA-approved diagnostic test, commonly referred to as a “companion diagnostic.” The FDA issued a final guidance document in July 2014 addressing agency policy in relation to in vitro companion diagnostic tests. The guidance explains that for some drugs and therapeutic biologics, the use of a companion diagnostic
33
test is essential for the safe and effective use of the product, such as when the use of a product is limited to a specific patient subpopulation that can be identified by using the test. According to the guidance, the FDA generally will not approve such a product if the companion diagnostic is not also approved or cleared for the appropriate indication, and accordingly the therapeutic product and the companion diagnostic should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously. The FDA has also issued a Guidance, Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device with a Therapeutic Product (2016), which is “is intended to be a practical guide to assist therapeutic product sponsors and IVD sponsors in developing a therapeutic product and an accompanying IVD companion diagnostic,” and a Guidance, Developing and Labeling In vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices for a Specific Group of Oncology Therapeutic Products (2020), which “describes considerations for the development and labeling of in vitro companion diagnostic devices (referred to as “companion diagnostics” herein) to support the indicated uses of multiple drug or biological oncology products, when appropriate.”
As stated in its Guidance, the FDA may decide that it is appropriate to approve such a product without an approved or cleared in vitro companion diagnostic device when the drug or therapeutic biologic is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition for which no satisfactory alternative treatment exists and the FDA determines that the benefits from the use of a product with an unapproved or uncleared in vitro companion diagnostic device are so pronounced as to outweigh the risks from the lack of an approved or cleared in vitro companion diagnostic device. The FDA encourages sponsors considering developing a therapeutic product that requires a companion diagnostic to request a meeting with both relevant device and therapeutic product review divisions to ensure that the product development plan will produce sufficient data to establish the safety and effectiveness of both the therapeutic product and the companion diagnostic. To date, no product targeting TERT+ cancer patients has been approved by FDA, and the applicability to THIO of FDA’s Companion Diagnostics Guidance and policy is yet to be determined. If a companion diagnostic is required to be developed and approved in order to receive approval of THIO, the cost and length of time to fully develop and receive approval (if at all) of THIO may both be increased, as described in more detail in the section Risk Factors – Risks Relating to Government Regulation. Because the FDA’s policy on companion diagnostics is set forth only in guidance, this policy is subject to change and is not legally binding.
Expedited Development and Review Programs
The FDA has a Fast-Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drug and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drug and biological products 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 and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Under a Fast Track designation, the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA or BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if (i) the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA or BLA, (ii) the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA or BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and (iii) the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA.
Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing approval, including those submitted under a Fast Track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or the new product has the potential to offer a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared with marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug or biological 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, which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical studies establishing that the product 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. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies to confirm the safety and efficacy for the approved indication. Failure to conduct such studies or conducting such studies that do not establish the required safety and efficacy may result in revocation of the original accelerated approval. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval, pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch or subsequent marketing of the product. Fast Track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process, and even if granted, accelerated approval status does not guarantee an accelerated review or marketing approval by the FDA.
34
The Hatch-Waxman Amendments and Generic Competition
Orange Book Listing
Once a drug product is approved under an NDA, the product is listed in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” commonly known as the Orange Book. An NDA-approved drug product will be designated in the Orange Book as a Reference Listed Drug (RLD). Sponsors of approved NDA’s are required to list with the FDA patents whose claims cover the product’s active ingredient, formulation, or an approved method of using the drug.
Patent Term Extensions
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of the use of our therapeutic candidates, some of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product or therapeutic candidate’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one half of the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a NDA, plus the time between the submission date of a NDA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved product or therapeutic candidate is eligible for the extension and the application for extension must be made prior to expiration of the patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we intend to apply for restorations of patent term for some of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond their current expiration date, depending on the expected length of clinical trials and other factors involved in the submission of the relevant NDA.
ANDA Approval Process
The Hatch-Waxman Amendments established an abbreviated FDA approval process for generic drugs that are shown to be pharmaceutically equivalent and bioequivalent to drugs previously approved by the FDA through the NDA process. Approval to market and distribute these drugs is obtained by filing an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, with the FDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent to the listed drug. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are termed abbreviated because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, a generic applicant must demonstrate that its product is bioequivalent to the innovator drug. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.
Section 505(b)(2) NDA Approval Process
As an alternative path to FDA approval for modifications to formulations or uses of products previously approved by the FDA, an applicant may submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA and enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previous approval of a similar product, and/or published literature, in support of its application. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. If the Section 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness is scientifically appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical studies or clinical trials of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements, including clinical trials, to support the change from the approved reference drug. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the label indications for which the reference drug has been approved or for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.
ANDA and 505(b)(2) products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference listed drug, and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Moreover, generic versions of RLDs are often automatically substituted for the RLD by pharmacies when dispensing a prescription written for the RLD. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference listed drug is typically lost to the generic product.
ANDA and 505(b)(2) NDA Patent Certification Requirements
Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the Orange Book or a Section 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA, as applicable, that (1) no patent information on
35
the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. If an ANDA is submitted to FDA with a Paragraph IV Certification, the generic applicant must also provide a “Paragraph IV Notification” to the holder of the NDA for the RLD and to the owner of the listed patent(s) being challenged by the ANDA applicant, providing a detailed written statement of the bases for the ANDA applicant’s position that the relevant patent(s) is invalid or would not be infringed. If the patent owner brings a patent infringement lawsuit against the ANDA applicant within 45 days of the Paragraph IV Notification, FDA approval of the ANDA will be automatically stayed for 30 months, or until 7-1/2 years after the NDA approval if the generic application was filed between 4 years and 5 years after the NDA approval. Any such stay will be terminated earlier if the court rules that the patent is invalid or would not be infringed. The applicant may, in certain circumstances, elect to submit a “section viii” statement with respect to a listed method of use patent, certifying that the proposed generic labeling does not contain (or carves out) any language that would infringe a method of use patented listed in the Orange Book for the RLD.
The ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the reference drug has expired as described in further detail below.
Regulatory Exclusivities
New Chemical Entity (NCE) Exclusivity
The Hatch-Waxman amendments provides a period of five years of non-patent marketing exclusivity for the first approved drug containing a new chemical entity (“NCE”) as an active ingredient. An NCE is an active moiety that has not been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. A fixed combination drug product may receive NCE exclusivity if one of its active ingredients is an NCE, but not if all of its active ingredients have previously been approved. An “active moiety” is defined as the molecule or ion responsible for the drug substance’s physiological or pharmacologic action. During the five-year exclusivity period, the FDA cannot accept for filing any ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA seeking approval of a product that contains the same active moiety, except that the FDA may accept such an application for filing after four years if the application includes a paragraph IV certification to a listed patent. In the case of such applications accepted for filing between four and five years after approval of the reference drug, the 30-Month Stay of approval triggered by a timely patent infringement lawsuit is extended by the amount of time necessary to extend the stay until 7-1/2 years after the approval of the reference drug NDA.
New Clinical Trial (3-Year) Exclusivity
A drug, including one approved under Section 505(b)(2), may obtain a three-year period of exclusivity for a particular indication or condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical trials (other than bioavailability studies) was essential to the approval of the application or supplemental application and was conducted/sponsored by the applicant. Should this occur, the FDA would be precluded from approving any ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) application for the protected modification until after that three-year exclusivity period has run. However, unlike NCE exclusivity, the FDA can accept an application and begin the review process during the exclusivity period.
Orphan Drug Designation and Orphan Exclusivity
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant Orphan Drug Designation to a therapeutic candidate intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects either (i) fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or (ii) 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 in the United States a product or therapeutic candidate for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that product or therapeutic candidate. Orphan Drug Designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan Drug Designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
If a product or therapeutic candidate that has Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the approved product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other marketing applications for the same drug for the same indication, except under limited circumstances, for seven years. Orphan product exclusivity, however, could also block the approval of one of our therapeutic candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug as defined by the FDA, or if our therapeutic candidate is determined to be contained within a competitor’s approved drug for the same indication or disease.
In addition, an orphan drug credit is available for qualifying costs incurred between the date the FDA designates a drug as an orphan drug and the date the FDA approves the drug.
36
Pediatric Exclusivity
Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity available in the United States and, if granted, it provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, certain therapeutic candidates may obtain an additional six months of exclusivity if the sponsor conducts pediatric research and submits new clinical information requested in writing by the FDA, referred to as a Written Request, relating to the use of the active moiety of the product or therapeutic candidate in children. The data do not need to support a label change for pediatric use; rather, the additional protection is granted if the pediatric clinical trial is deemed to have fairly responded to the FDA’s Written Request. Although the FDA may issue a Written Request for studies on either approved or unapproved indications, it may only do so where it determines that information relating to that use of a product or therapeutic candidate in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may produce health benefits in that population. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described trials. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.
Post-Approval Requirements
Following approval of a new drug or biologic product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, continuing cGMP compliance, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. If there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or a NDA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials.
Once an NDA or BLA approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product or therapeutic reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or therapeutic candidate, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, may result in in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market or clinical trials to assess new 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 other enforcement-related letters or clinical holds on post-approval clinical trials;
• refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved application, or suspension or revocation of product approvals;
• product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products;
• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties;
• consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment, or exclusion from federal health care programs; or
• mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information.
Accordingly, a therapeutic candidate manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things:
• cGMP compliance requirements;
• record-keeping requirements;
• reporting of adverse experiences with the therapeutic candidate;
• providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information;
• therapeutic sampling and distribution requirements;
• notifying the FDA and gaining its approval of specified manufacturing or labeling changes; and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among other things, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in-patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling, limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet.
37
FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Therapeutic manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved therapeutic products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, foreign regulatory agencies, and some state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other laws. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any noncompliance with cGMP requirements. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the NDA or BLA applicant and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved product. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of quality control and quality assurance.
In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or the PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. The Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or the DSCSA, was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the United States, including most biological products. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers over a 10‐year period that is expected to culminate in November 2023. From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.
Regulation Outside of the United States
In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to regulations of other jurisdictions governing any clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our therapeutic candidates. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of countries outside of the United States before we can commence clinical trials in such countries and approval of the regulators of such countries or economic areas, such as the European Union, before we may market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.
Under European Union regulatory systems, a company can consider applying for marketing authorization in several European Union member states by submitting its marketing authorization application(s) under a centralized, decentralized or mutual recognition procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all European Union member states. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines derived from biotechnology, orphan medicinal products, or those medicines with an active substance not authorized in the European Union on or before May 20, 2004 intended to treat acquired immune deficiency syndrome, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders or diabetes and optional for those medicines containing a new active substance not authorized in the European Union on or before May 20, 2004, medicines which are highly innovative, or medicines to which the granting of a marketing authorization under the centralized procedure would be in the interest of patients at the European Union-level. The decentralized procedure provides for recognition by European Union national authorities of a first assessment performed by one of the member states. Under this procedure, an identical application for marketing authorization is submitted simultaneously to the national authorities of several European Union member states, one of them being chosen as the “Reference Member State,” and the remaining being the “Concerned Member States.” The Reference Member State must prepare and send drafts of an assessment report, summary of product characteristics and the labeling and package leaflet within 120 days after receipt of a valid marketing authorization application to the Concerned Member States, which must decide within 90 days whether to recognize approval. If any Concerned Member State does not recognize the marketing authorization on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states. The mutual recognition procedure is similar to the decentralized procedure except that a medicine must have already received a marketing authorization in at least one of the member states, and that member state acts as the Reference Member State.
As in the United States, we may apply for designation of a therapeutic candidate as an orphan drug for the treatment of a specific indication in the European Union before the application for marketing authorization is made.
Orphan drugs in the European Union enjoy economic and marketing benefits, including up to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved indication unless another applicant can show that its product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the
38
orphan-designated product, the marketing authorization holder is unable to supply sufficient quantity of the medicinal product, or the marketing authorization holder has given its consent.
Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement
Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or regulatory authorities in other countries. It is time consuming and expensive to seek reimbursement from third-party payors. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Payment rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower cost products that are already reimbursed and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by third-party payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. In the U.S., third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, but they also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations. Accordingly, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product.
Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of therapeutics have been a focus in this effort. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic and biosimilar products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis. In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement for the pharmaceutical or biological products apply to companion diagnostics.
Moreover, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a product and therapeutic candidate must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing therapeutic pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. 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 of our therapeutic candidates. Historically, therapeutic candidates launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to be significantly lower.
Healthcare Reform
In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product and therapeutic candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product and therapeutic candidates that obtain marketing approval. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit, or delay regulatory approval of our product and therapeutic candidates. For example, in the United States, the system for FDA to collect and expend user fees paid by manufacturers of drugs, biologics, and medical devices must be reauthorized by statute every five years, and since 1992, each reauthorization legislation has included, to greater or lesser degrees, various other changes to the FDA’s regulatory systems and procedures. The current legislative authority for FDA user fees expired in September 2022, new legislation will be required for FDA to continue collecting prescription drug user fees in future fiscal years. The reauthorization may include new legal provisions that could significantly impact our business in ways that cannot be predicted at this time. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of reducing drug prices, containing healthcare costs more generally, improving quality and/or expanding access.
39
For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, was enacted in March 2010 and has had a significant impact on the health care industry in the U.S. The ACA expanded coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall healthcare costs. It also included the BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. With regard to biopharmaceutical products, the ACA, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program.
Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA and we expect there may be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future.
In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA that affect health care expenditures. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020, and was designed to provide financial support and resources to individuals and businesses effected by the COVID-19 pandemic, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one year, through 2030, in order to offset the added expense of the 2020 cancellation.
Additionally, on December 20, 2019, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2020 became law (P.L. 116-94), which includes a piece of bipartisan legislation called the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act of 2019 or the “CREATES Act.” The CREATES Act aims to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers have improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic and biosimilar product developers access to samples of brand products. Because generic and biosimilar product developers need samples to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some have attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of generic and biosimilar products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic or biosimilar product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Whether and how generic and biosimilar product developments will use this new pathway, as well as the likely outcome of any legal challenges to provisions of the CREATES Act, remain highly uncertain and its potential effects on our future commercial products are unknown.
Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. While the Trump administration put forward various proposals and executive orders aimed at reducing drug prices, the Biden administration is likely to pursue its own proposals going forward. In August 2021, President Biden announced his support for legislative proposals to grant Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices, for pharmaceutical companies to face penalties if they raise prices faster than inflation, and to impose a new cap on how much Medicare recipients have to spend on medications. Such proposals may be included in upcoming legislation in Congress, but the outcome of such proposals remains uncertain.
Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.
We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services.
Other Healthcare Laws
Our current and future business operations are subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments where we research, and, if approved, market, sell and distribute our therapeutic candidates. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, physician sunshine and drug pricing transparency laws and regulations such as:
40
• The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, for an item or service or the purchasing or ordering of a good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute is subject to evolving interpretations. In the past, the government has enforced the federal Anti-Kickback Statute to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham consulting and other financial arrangements with physicians. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act;
• The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalty laws, prohibit, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the U.S. government, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. government. Actions under these laws may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. The federal government uses these laws, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the U.S., for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices;
• The U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, includes federal, civil and criminal provisions that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;
• The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, among other things, imposes requirements on manufacturers of FDA-approved drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies covered by Medicare or Medicaid to report, on an annual basis, to HHS information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, chiropractors and, beginning in 2022 for payments and other transfers of value provided in the previous year, certain advanced non-physician health care practitioners), teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members;
• HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations impose specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities, which include certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions; and
• Analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; state laws which 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 drug and therapeutic biologics manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and pricing information; state and local laws which require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state laws and non-United States laws and regulations (particularly European Union laws regarding personal data relating to individuals based in Europe) that govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts.
• Ensuring that our current and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including monetary damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid,
41
reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with any of these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.
Manufacturing
We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities to produce any of our therapeutic candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently depend on third-party contract manufacturers for all our required raw materials, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API), and finished products for our preclinical and clinical trials and if and when applicable, commercialization. We currently employ internal resources to manage our manufacturing relationships with these third parties.
Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable FDA manufacturing requirements contained in the FDA’s current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations. cGMP regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as corresponding maintenance of records and documentation. Pharmaceutical product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved pharmaceutical products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented.
Regulations - Environmental
We are subject to various environmental laws of federal, state and local governments and foreign governments at various levels. Compliance with existing laws has not had a material adverse effect on our capital expenditures, competitive position, financial condition or results of operations, and management does not believe it will have such an impact in the current fiscal year. However, we cannot predict the impact of unforeseen environmental contingencies or new or changed laws or regulations on our business.
Employees
As of December 31, 2024, we had a total of 13 full-time employees which includes one employee employed by our Romanian subsidiary. We believe that we maintain a satisfactory working relationship with our employees, and we have not experienced any significant labor disputes or any difficulty in recruiting staff for our operations. None of our employees are represented by a labor union.
Human Capital Resources
Employee Engagement, Talent Development & Benefits . We believe that our future success largely depends upon our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. We provide our employees with competitive salaries and bonuses, and opportunities for equity ownership.
Diversity, Inclusion, and Culture . Much of our success is rooted in the diversity of our teams and our commitment to inclusion. We value diversity at all levels and continue to focus on extending our diversity and inclusion initiatives across our entire workforce. We believe that our business benefits from the different perspectives a diverse workforce brings, and we pride ourselves on having a strong, inclusive and positive culture based on our shared mission and values.
Our Corporate Information
We were incorporated in Delaware in August 2018, and we have operations in Chicago, Illinois, with some of our team members setup virtually and working remotely in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Iowa, Ohio, Texas, North Carolinia, and New Jersey. Our principal executive office is located at 444 West Lake Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60606, and our phone number is (312) 416-8592. In July 2021, we established a wholly owned Australian subsidiary, MAIA Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd, to conduct various preclinical and clinical activities for the development of our product candidates. In April 2022, we established a wholly owned Romanian subsidiary, MAIA Biotechnology Romania S.R.L. to conduct various preclinical and clinical activities for the development of our product candidates. Our website address is www.MAIABiotech.com . The information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and you should not consider any information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in deciding whether to purchase our common stock.
42
Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company
We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), as modified by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. As such, we are eligible to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies including, but not limited to:
• not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;
• reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports, proxy statements, and registration statements; and
• exemptions from the requirements of holding a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved.
If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result of these exemptions, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and the price of our common stock may be more volatile.
In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) for complying with new or revised accounting standards. In other words, an emerging growth company can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We intend to take advantage of the benefits of this extended transition period.
We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our initial public offering, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period. References herein to emerging growth company will have the meaning associated with it in the JOBS Act.
Implications of Being a Smaller Reporting Company
Additionally, we are a “smaller reporting company” as defined in Rule 10(f)(1) of Regulation S-K. Smaller reporting companies may take advantage of certain reduced disclosure obligations, including, among other things, providing only two years of audited financial statements. We will remain a smaller reporting company until the last day of the fiscal year in which (1) the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates equals or exceeds $250 million as of the end of that year’s second fiscal quarter, or (2) our annual revenues equaled or exceeded $100 million during such completed fiscal year and the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates equals or exceeds $700 million as of the end of that year’s second fiscal quarter.
43