MDGL filing — read by section

Item 1. Business

Item 1. 
 Business 
 
 References in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to Madrigal, the Company, we, our and us refer to Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. “Madrigal” is a registered trademark of Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. Other trademarks or service marks appearing in this report may be trademarks or service marks of other owners. 
 Executive Overview 
 Our Focus. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company pursuing novel therapeutics for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH. Our lead product candidate, resmetirom, is a proprietary, liver-directed, selective thyroid hormone receptor-ß, or THR-ß, agonist being developed as a once-daily oral pill for the treatment of NASH. 
 Our Patient Market Opportunity. NASH is a serious inflammatory form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD. NAFLD has become the most common liver disease in the United States and other developed countries and is characterized by an accumulation of fat in the liver with no other apparent causes. NASH can progress to cirrhosis or liver failure, require liver transplantation and can also result in liver cancer. Progression of NASH to end stage liver disease will soon surpass all other causes of liver failure requiring liver transplantation. Importantly, beyond these critical conditions, NASH and NAFLD patients additionally suffer heightened cardiovascular risk and, in fact, die more frequently from cardiovascular events than from liver disease. NASH and NAFLD have grown as a consequence of rising worldwide obesity-related disorders. In the United States, NAFLD is estimated to affect approximately 25% of the population, and approximately 25% of those will progress from NAFLD to NASH. Current estimates place NASH prevalence at approximately 22 million people in the United States by 2024, with similar prevalence in Europe and Asia. The prevalence of NASH is also increasing in developing regions due to the adoption of a more sedentary lifestyle and a diet consisting of processed foods with high fat and fructose content. 
 Our Completed Studies. For NASH, we enrolled 125 patients in a Phase 2 clinical trial with resmetirom. We achieved the 12-week primary endpoint for this Phase 2 clinical trial and reported the results in December 2017, and we reported positive topline 36-week results at the conclusion of the Phase 2 clinical trial in May 2018. We also completed a 36-week, open-label extension study in 31 participating NASH patients from our Phase 2 clinical trial, which included 14 patients who received placebo in the main study. 
 On December 18, 2019 the Company announced it had opened for enrollment MAESTRO-NAFLD-1, a 52-week, non-invasive, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical study of patients with biopsy-confirmed or presumed NASH recruited from sites in the U.S. Key endpoints are safety, including safety biomarkers. Secondary endpoints include LDL cholesterol, lipid biomarkers, MRI-PDFF, NASH and fibrosis biomarkers. Except for serial liver biopsies, the study protocol is similar to the MAESTRO-NASH study (discussed below under “—Our Ongoing and Planned Studies”), with resmetirom doses of 80 mg or 100 mg or placebo. Enrollment objectives for this study were exceeded, with approximately 1,300 patients enrolled overall. The MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 study will help support the adequacy of the safety database at the time of NDA submission for Subpart H approval for treatment of patients with NASH with fibrosis. In November of 2021, we reported data from the open label non-cirrhotic arm of MAESTRO-NAFLD-1, and in January 2022 we announced that we achieved primary and secondary endpoints for the double-blind portion of MAESTRO-NAFLD-1, as summarized in “- Key Developments” below. 
 Our Ongoing and Planned Studies. On March 28, 2019, the Company announced that it had initiated MAESTRO-NASH, a Phase 3 trial in NASH with its once daily, oral thyroid hormone receptor beta selective agonist, resmetirom. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study is being conducted at more than 220 sites in the United States and the rest of the world. MAESTRO-NASH is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-

 7 

controlled Phase 3 study of resmetirom in patients with liver biopsy-confirmed NASH and was initiated in March 2019. The subpart H portion of the study enrolled more than 1,000 patients with biopsy-proven NASH (at least half with F3 (advanced) fibrosis, the remainder F2 or F1B (moderate fibrosis) with a few earlier F1 patients), randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily resmetirom 80 mg, resmetirom 100 mg, or placebo. After 52 weeks of treatment, a second liver biopsy is performed. The dual primary surrogate endpoints on biopsy are NASH resolution with ≥2-point reduction in NAS (NAFLD Activity Score), and with no worsening of fibrosis OR a 1-point decrease in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS. Achievement of either primary endpoint is considered a successful trial outcome. A key secondary endpoint is lowering of LDL-C. All patients enrolled in the MAESTRO-NASH study (up to 2,000 in total) continue on therapy after the initial 52-week treatment period for up to 54 months to accrue and measure hepatic clinical outcome events including progression to cirrhosis on biopsy (52 weeks and 54 months) and hepatic decompensation events, as well as all-cause mortality. In December 2022, we reported topline results from the subpart H portion of the study: resmetirom achieved both primary endpoints with both daily oral doses, 80 mg and 100 mg, relative to placebo, as summarized in “- Key Developments” below. 
 On July 13, 2021 we announced first patient dosed in a planned 52-week open label active treatment extension study of MAESTRO-NAFLD-1, named MAESTRO-NAFLD-Open Label Extension (OLE). The OLE study allows patients who complete MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 to consent to 52 weeks of active treatment with resmetirom, making this treatment available to both patients who were assigned to placebo in MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 and patients who were on resmetirom in MAESTRO-NAFLD-1. 
 In August 2022, Madrigal initiated MAESTRO-NASH-OUTCOMES, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study in approximately 700 patients with early NASH cirrhosis to allow for noninvasive monitoring of progression to liver decompensation events. A positive outcome is expected to support the full approval of resmetirom for noncirrhotic NASH, potentially accelerating the timeline to full approval. In addition, this study has the potential to support an additional indication for resmetirom in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis. 
 The following chart summarizes the status of our product candidate development programs for resmetirom: 
 
 8 

 Key Developments 
 MAESTRO-NASH TRIAL. In December 2022, Madrigal announced topline results from the pivotal Phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH biopsy study of resmetirom. Madrigal reported that resmetirom achieved both primary endpoints with both daily oral doses, 80 mg and 100 mg, relative to placebo. 
 Patients meeting eligibility requirements for MAESTRO-NASH were randomized 1:1:1 to receive resmetirom 80 mg, resmetirom 100 mg, or placebo taken orally once daily. Baseline characteristics in the 966 randomized patients in the primary analysis NASH population (ITT, safety population) were balanced across treatment arms and include age 57 (10) (mean (SD)), female 56%, white 89%, Hispanic 21%, BMI 36 (7) kg/m2, type 2 diabetes 67%, hypertension 78%, dyslipidemia 71%, hypothyroidism 13%, FibroScan, kilopascals (kPa) 13 (7), CAP 348 (38), MRI-PDFF 18% (7), FIB-4 1.4 (0.7), ALT 55 (32) IU, AST 41 (23) IU, LDL 99 (40) mg/dL, triglycerides 188 (132) mg/dL, hemoglobin A1C 6.6 (1) %, ELF 9.8 (0.9). Medications included 49% on statins, 14% on GLP-1 agonists, 14% on SGLT2 inhibitors. Baseline liver biopsy fibrosis scores included F3 (~60%), F2 (~35%), F1B (~5%) (primary analysis population) with 84% with NAS ≥5 based on independent primary glass slide reads of the entire study by two central pathologists. 
 A second biopsy was conducted after 52 weeks of treatment for assessment of the dual primary endpoints. The primary efficacy analysis assessed histological response at 52 weeks in 955 patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH with fibrosis (modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population) that excluded 11 ITT patients who had their Week 52 biopsy after Week 60 due to COVID-related reasons per regulatory guidelines. Patients without a second biopsy due to early study discontinuation or missing liver biopsy (~17% across treatment arms) were included and considered as non-responders in the primary efficacy analyses (mITT). The compliance to treatment was high and minimally impacted by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. 
 Dual Primary Endpoints (52 Weeks) and Key Secondary Endpoint (24 weeks) 
 
 Primary Endpoint
 
 Resmetirom 80 mg
(n=316) 
 
 p-value 
 
 Resmetirom 100 mg
(n=321) 
 
 p-value 
 
 Placebo 
 (n=318) 
 
 NASH resolution (ballooning o, inflammation 0,1) with ≥2-point reduction in NAS and no worsening of fibrosis
 
 26 
 % 
 
 <0.0001 
 
 30 
 % 
 
 <0.0001 
 
 10 
 % 

 ≥-stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS
 
 24 
 % 
 
 0.0002 
 
 26 
 % 
 
 <0.0001 
 
 14 
 % 

 Key Secondary Endpoint
 
 LDL-C lowering (24 weeks)
 
 -12 
 % 
 
 <0.0001 
 
 -16 
 % 
 
 <0.0001 
 
 1 
 % 

 All biopsies were read independently by two central pathologists. Each pathologist’s scores showed a similar statistically significant magnitude of response at both doses for both liver biopsy endpoints. Biopsy endpoints were achieved independent of baseline fibrosis stage or diabetes status, including similar statistical significance and magnitude of effect at both doses in subgroups of F2, F3, and F2/F3 patients. Other secondary liver biopsy endpoints that were achieved at both doses include ≥2 point reduction in NAS with no worsening of fibrosis, ≥2 point reduction in NAS with ≥1-stage improvement in fibrosis, NASH resolution (with ≥2 point reduction in NAS) with ≥1-stage improvement in fibrosis, and a 2-stage reduction in fibrosis without worsening of NAS. 

 9 

 Multiple secondary endpoints were achieved, including statistically significant reduction from baseline in liver enzymes (ALT, AST and GGT). Reductions in atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins, fibrosis biomarkers and imaging tests (MRI-PDFF, CAP and liver stiffness measures) were observed in resmetirom treatment arms as compared with placebo. MAESTRO-NASH included many biomarker and imaging assessments that may be used in real world clinical practice to identify appropriate patients for treatment and monitor response to resmetirom, if approved. 
 Resmetirom was safe and well-tolerated at both the 80 mg and 100 mg doses. The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was similar across treatment arms: 11.8%, 12.7% and 12.1% for the 80 mg, 100 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The rate of study discontinuation for adverse events was low: 2.8%, 7.7% and 3.7% for the 80 mg, 100 mg and placebo groups, respectively. SAEs occurred at expected rates based on the patient population. 
 Consistent with previous Phase 2 and Phase 3 data, the most common adverse events reported with greater frequency in the resmetirom groups versus placebo were an excess of generally mild and transient diarrhea at the beginning of therapy, in 28%, 34%, 16% in the 80 mg, 100 mg and placebo groups, respectively, and generally mild nausea that occurred at rates of 22%, 19% and 13% in the 80 mg, 100 mg and placebo arms, respectively. 
 MAESTRO-NASH is an ongoing blinded Phase 3 clinical trial, and enrolled patients continue on therapy after the Week 52 liver biopsy for up to a total of 54 months to accrue hepatic clinical outcome events including histologic conversion to cirrhosis and hepatic decompensation events. 
 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1. In January 2022, Madrigal announced topline results from the Phase 3 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 safety study of resmetirom. Madrigal reported that resmetirom demonstrated statistical significance for primary and key secondary endpoints summarized below, from the double-blind placebo-controlled 969-patient portion of the study. These endpoints indicated that resmetirom (1) was well-tolerated at 80 and 100 mg in patients treated for 52 weeks, (2) provided significant and clinically relevant reductions in liver fat as measured by MRI-PDFF and (3) significantly reduced atherogenic lipids, including LDLc, apolipoprotein B and triglycerides. 
 A total of 972 patients were randomized in the double-blind arms of the MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 study: 969 patients were included in the safety population and 943 patients in a modified intent-to-treat population for evaluation of key secondary and other endpoints. Important inclusion criteria included the presence of three risk factors of metabolic syndrome, a level of liver fibrosis (measured by FibroScan) consistent with a range of stages of liver fibrosis, and >=8% liver fat (measured by MRI-PDFF). 
 Adverse events observed in the MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial were generally mild to moderate in severity. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar across treatment arms and discontinuation for adverse events was low. 
 Consistent with published data, the most common adverse event reported with greater frequency in the resmetirom groups vs placebo was generally mild diarrhea or increased stool frequency at the beginning of therapy, which occurred in 9% and ~17% over the placebo rate in the 80 and 100 mg dose groups, respectively. 
 
 Resmetirom
80 mg 
 
 Resmetirom
100 mg 
 
 Placebo 
 
 Safety population
 
 (N=327) 
 
 (N=324) 
 
 (N=318) 
 
 At least one TEAE
 
 289 (88.4) 
 
 279 (86.1) 
 
 260 (81.8) 
 
 At least one Serious TEAE
 
 20 (6.1) 
 
 24 (7.4) 
 
 20 (6.3) 
 
 TEAE ≥ Grade 3 Severity
 
 26 (8.0) 
 
 29 (9.0) 
 
 29 (9.1) 
 
 AE discontinuations from study
 
 All treatments combined, n=21; (2.17%) 
 
 10 

 Resmetirom
80 mg 
 
 Resmetirom
100 mg 
 
 Placebo 
 
 Maximum NCI CTCAE Severity Grade
 
 Grade 1
 
 99 (30.3) 
 
 99 (30.6) 
 
 92 (28.9) 
 
 Grade 2
 
 164 (50.2) 
 
 151 (46.6) 
 
 139 (43.7) 
 
 AEs over 10%
 
 Diarrhea
 
 76 (23.2) 
 
 101 (31.2) 
 
 44 (13.8) 
 
 Nausea
 
 38 (11.6) 
 
 59 (18.2) 
 
 25 (7.9) 
 
 AE (adverse event); TEAE (treatment emergent adverse event); NCI (National Cancer Institute); CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) 
 The following hierarchically-controlled key secondary endpoints were reported for both the 80 and 100 mg resmetirom dose groups. Resmetirom provided significant reductions in liver fat as measured by MRI-PDFF and reduced atherogenic lipids, including LDLc, apolipoprotein B and triglycerides. Open-label arm data is reported in the far left column below and double-blind arm data are reported in the remaining columns below. Although both arms were randomized in MAESTRO-NAFLD-1, lipid reductions were numerically greater in the 100 mg open label treatment arm compared to the 100 mg double-blind arm, and we believe this is due to greater visit and dose interruptions experienced by open-label arm patients during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, as patients in the open-label active 100 mg treatment arm were less impacted by COVID-related dose interruptions than double-blind patients. 
 
 Resmetirom
100 mg OL 
 
 Resmetirom
80 mg 
 
 p-value 
 
 Resmetirom 100
mg 
 
 p-value 
 
 Placebo 
 
 LDLc %CFB (SE) (Week 24)
 
 -21 (1.9) 
 
 -12.7 (2.1) 
 
 <.0001 
 
 -14.4 (2.1) 
 
 <.0001 
 
 -1.7 (2.0) 
 
 ApoB %CFB (SE) (Week 24)
 
 -22 (1.5) 
 
 -14.6 (1.5) 
 
 <.0001 
 
 -16.6 (1.6) 
 
 <.0001 
 
 -0.1 (1.5) 
 
 MRI-PDFF %CFB (Week 16)
 
 -49% 
 
 -41% 
 
 <.0001 
 
 -48% 
 
 <.0001 
 
 -6% 
 
 Liver volume PDFF correction %CFB
 
 -60% 
 
 MRI-PDFF %CFB (Week 52)
 
 -53% 
 
 -43% 
 
 <.0001 
 
 -48% 
 
 <.0001 
 
 -8% 
 
 Liver volume PDFF correction %CFB
 
 -61% 
 
 Triglycerides baseline >150 mg/dL, CFB (SE)
 
 -65 (8.3) 
 
 -55.6 (8.6) 
 
 NA 
 
 -59 (6.5) 
 
 NA 
 
 -6.9 (16.1) 
 
 Triglycerides baseline >150 mg/dL (geomean) %CFB (95% CI)
 
 -25 (3.1) 
 
 -19.5 (-27.0 
 to -11.1) 
 
 =.0005 
 
 -21.5 (-28.0 to 
-14.3) 
 
 <.0001 
 
 -2.1 (-10.6 to 
7.4) 
 
 CFB (change from baseline); SE (standard error); APOB (Apolipoprotein B); MRI-PDFF (magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat-fraction); CI (confidence interval); OL, open label non-cirrhotic arm randomized concurrently with double-blind arms 
 MASESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES. In August 2022, we announced initiation of MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES, a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study that will noninvasively measure progression to liver decompensation events in approximately 700 patients with compensated NASH cirrhosis. 
 The primary endpoint of MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES is the incidence of composite liver-related outcome events, including all-cause mortality, liver transplant, hepatic decompensation (ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage), and confirmed increase of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score from <12 to ≥15 due to progression of NASH cirrhosis. Key inclusion criteria are well-compensated NASH cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A) and presence of three metabolic risk factors (metabolic syndrome). Patients will be randomized 3:1 in a blinded manner to receive 80 mg resmetirom or matching placebo, given orally once daily. The study duration is expected to be two to three years for accrual of the required number of composite clinical outcome events. 

 11 

 A positive outcome is expected to support the full approval of resmetirom for noncirrhotic NASH, potentially accelerating the timeline to full approval. In addition, this study has the potential to support an additional indication for resmetirom in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis. 
 RESMETIROM PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL in NASH. As summarized above, the Company successfully completed its Phase 2 clinical trial in NASH in 2018. In this clinical trial, resmetirom demonstrated statistical significance in the primary endpoint (p<0.0001), the relative reduction of liver fat compared with baseline on magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton density fat fraction, or MRI-PDFF, at 12-weeks which was reported in December 2017, and statistically significant results in multiple 36-week endpoints, including key secondary endpoints, reduction and resolution of NASH on liver biopsy as set forth in the table below, which was reported in May 2018. This clinical trial was published in the Lancet in November, 2019. 
 Lead Product Candidate—Resmetirom 
 We believe that resmetirom may be the first THR-agonist product candidate in development for NASH that selectively targets the THR-ß pathway. Active thyroid hormone, known as T3, interacts with two nuclear receptors, THR-α, which is the predominant receptor expressed in most human tissues, including heart and bone, and THR-ß, which has more restricted tissue expression, and is the predominant receptor responsible for metabolic actions in the liver, including both cholesterol- and TG-lowering. Selective activation of the THR-ßreceptor in liver tissue is believed to favorably affect cholesterol and lipoprotein levels via multiple mechanisms, which may be complementary to those of other lipid-lowering therapies such as statin drugs. We believe that these characteristics of THR-ß activation by resmetirom will in turn lead to clinically meaningful reductions in LDL-C, and plasma and liver TGs. 
 We believe that resmetirom is the first selective small molecule THR-ß agonist compound. Resmetirom, along with MGL-3745, a potential backup compound to resmetirom, was discovered at Hoffmann-La Roche, or Roche, in Nutley, New Jersey, by utilizing a novel functional assay that, unlike a simple receptor binding assay, assessed the functional activity of compounds which interacted with thyroid hormone receptors. In a published study by Madrigal and Roche in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry using this functional assay, resmetirom was shown to be highly selective for the THR-ß receptor, with almost no effect on THR-α, unlike other compounds purported in published studies to be ß -selective based on binding affinity, but which were shown to equally activate THR-α and THR-ß in the novel functional assay. 
 We believe that the ß-selectivity and liver-targeting properties of resmetirom are critically important for resmetirom’s beneficial metabolic actions in the liver, and enable avoidance of safety issues associated with THR-α activation by thyroid hormone and/or less selective THR agonists in tissues such as heart and bone. In a variety of preclinical animal model studies, resmetirom showed enhanced safety relative to T3 or other thyroid agonists. In animal models, resmetirom demonstrated cholesterol lowering, liver TG lowering, and reduction of markers of NASH-related liver inflammation and fibrosis at drug levels similar to those that lowered LDL-C in human clinical trials, providing data to support the advancement of resmetirom into NASH clinical trials. In chronic animal toxicology studies in dogs and rats, no effects on bone or cartilage histology were seen at any resmetirom dose in either species. 
 Resmetirom did not increase liver enzymes in Phase 1 studies and there were no bone and cartilage histologic findings in chronic animal toxicology studies. 
 Our Strategy 
 Our goal is to become a leading biopharmaceutical company developing and commercializing innovative liver-directed, ß-selective thyroid hormone receptor agonists for the treatment of cardio-metabolic and liver 

 12 

disease, fibrosis and inflammation. A key element is building a multi-therapy NASH focused company. To achieve our goal, we plan to: 
 
 • 
 
 Complete clinical development and seek regulatory approval of resmetirom in NASH. We successfully completed a Phase 2 clinical trial in NASH in 2018. NASH is a disease driven by the growing epidemic of obesity, with a significant unmet need for approved therapies that are effective and well tolerated. We believe resmetirom is an excellent candidate for the chronic treatment of NASH due to its safety profile and first-in-class pleiotropic actions in liver cells and potential to reduce cardiovascular risk in NASH patients. 
 
 • 
 
 Establish commercial capabilities to market resmetirom as a leading treatment for NASH. If approved, we intend to establish a sales and marketing organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize resmetirom in the United States and through a biopharma partner in rest of the world. Patients with NASH and liver fibrosis are primarily managed by a concentrated group of NASH specialists in the United States. We believe this will enable us to launch resmetirom in NASH in a cost-effective, targeted manner, in the United States. 
 
 • 
 
 Expand the resmetirom market opportunity to include patients with compensated NASH cirrhosis. Madrigal is conducting a Phase 3 trial – MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES – to noninvasively evaluate the effects of resmetirom on progression to liver decompensation events in NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis. A positive outcome is expected to support the full approval of resmetirom for noncirrhotic NASH, potentially accelerating the timeline to full approval. In addition, this study has the potential to support an additional indication for resmetirom in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis. 
 
 Target Indications 
 Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis 
 Overview and Market Opportunity 
 NASH is a serious inflammatory form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD. NAFLD has become the most common liver disease in the United States and other developed countries and is characterized by an accumulation of fat in the liver with no other apparent causes. NASH and NAFLD have grown as a consequence of rising worldwide obesity-related disorders. In the United States, NAFLD is estimated to affect approximately 25% of the population, and approximately 25% of those will progress from NAFLD to NASH. Current estimates place NASH prevalence at approximately 22 million people in the United States by 2024, with similar prevalence in Europe and Asia. The prevalence of NASH is also increasing in developing regions due to the adoption of a more sedentary lifestyle and a diet consisting of processed foods with high fat and fructose content. 
 In addition to the accumulation of fat in the liver, NASH is characterized by inflammation and cellular damage with or without fibrosis, the first stage of liver scarring, which may ultimately progress to cirrhosis. Within NASH cirrhosis, patients can be categorized as being compensated or decompensated. NASH with compensated cirrhosis is characterized by liver scarring / damage that reduces the ability to process blood supplied to the liver, though patients generally remain asymptomatic with normal liver function. NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis are on the cusp of negative consequences associated with end-stage liver disease such as portal hypertension, esophageal varices, ascites, liver cancer and liver failure. It is estimated that by 2024 the prevalent cirrhotic NASH population in the US will be approximately 2.4 million with the vast majority of these patients (2.1 million) being categorized as compensated. The progression rate from compensated cirrhosis to decompensation, HCC, or death is ~20% over two years. 
 NASH is strongly associated with cardiovascular disease, or CVD, and the most common cause of death in NASH patients is CVD. Progression to cirrhosis and other late-stage complications can occur within five to ten years after an initial NASH diagnosis. NASH patients with type-2 diabetes have a heightened risk of NASH disease progression. Once the disease advances beyond NASH to such life-threatening conditions as liver cancer and liver failure, then liver transplantation is the only treatment alternative. 

 13 

 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projects the prevalence of obesity to increase from 34% of the United States population to 42% of the United States population by 2030. Driven by this epidemic of obesity, NASH is projected to become the leading cause of liver transplants in the near future. Given the extremely limited availability of organ donors and high transplant costs, NASH patients who require transplantation will place a significant economic burden on the healthcare system. As such, there is a significant unmet medical need for well-tolerated oral treatments for NASH. Because there are currently no therapeutic products approved for the treatment of NASH, the market size is difficult to estimate. However, based on our analysis of multiple market assessments, we estimate that the addressable NASH population is several million patients worldwide, and that NASH could become a multi-billion dollar market able to support multiple approved drug products. 
 Resmetirom Commercial Strategy 
 We have conducted quantitative and qualitative market research studies and secondary data analytics to inform the commercial strategy for resmetirom. These studies and analytics evaluated the size of the market opportunity for resmetirom as well as physician, patient and payer perspectives on unmet needs in NASH patient care and the resmetirom product profile. 
 Based on published epidemiology data and an analysis of medical claims using ICD-10 disease diagnosis codes, we believe that approximately one million NASH patients in the US have been coded with NASH as of 2021. Appropriate NASH patients with significant fibrosis within this group will be the initial focus of a potential resmetirom launch in the US. Over time, as disease awareness improves and disease prevalence increases, we expect the number of identified NASH patients with significant fibrosis eligible for treatment to grow meaningfully following the potential launch of resmetirom. 
 Our market research indicates the following. Key stakeholder audiences view NASH with significant fibrosis as an unmet medical need. NASH specialist healthcare providers (hepatologists, gastroenterologists, a subset of endocrinologists and affiliated advanced practice providers) who currently manage patients with NASH perceive the urgency to treat NASH with significant fibrosis to be similar to uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. In a market research survey, more than 70% of these healthcare providers indicated that they consider NASH with significant fibrosis to be a very high to extremely high unmet need. A separate survey found that patients perceive NASH as a priority condition, with approximately 60% ranking NASH as a priority over their other comorbidities. Patients reported low levels of satisfaction with current treatment options, and a majority of patients (~60%) strongly desire a new treatment for NASH. Market research interviews conducted with payers found that the vast majority of payers consider NASH with significant fibrosis to be a high unmet need given the lack of approved treatment options and that they intend to cover new product entrants for the treatment of patients with NASH. In market research conducted in Europe, payers indicated that the efficacy data demonstrated in our Phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH study may support reimbursement with key health technology assessment bodies in Europe similar to first-to-market products in disease categories with high unmet need. 
 In market research examining perceptions of the resmetirom product profile, U.S. physicians prioritized NASH resolution, fibrosis improvement, reduction in liver stiffness and improvement in cardiovascular/metabolic risk parameters as key profile attributes. Approximately 85% of physicians surveyed viewed the resmetirom product profile as offering high to extremely high clinical utility for the treatment of patients with NASH with significant fibrosis, with 40% of NASH specialists indicating anticipated use immediately at launch, if approved. 
 A key focus of our commercial strategy for the launch of resmetirom is educating physicians on the role of noninvasive tests for identifying patients who may be appropriate for resmetirom treatment and monitoring treatment response. Multiple medical societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Heart Association (AHA) have published guidance documents or scientific statements that provide community physicians with information 

 14 

about the use of noninvasive tests to identify and manage patients with NASH. Our market research conducted in 2022 found that 80% of specialist healthcare providers managing patients with NASH in the U.S. have access to FibroScan, a noninvasive test that measures liver stiffness to estimate progression of fibrosis in patients with liver disease. 
 By 2030, we believe, including based on published research, that the prevalence of NASH patients with significant fibrosis (excluding NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis) will be approximately 19.1 million patients across the US, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Japan. 
 To evaluate the potential value and cost effectiveness of resmetirom as a treatment for NASH patients with significant liver fibrosis, we have initiated a series of health economics outcomes research studies and published a preliminary cost-effectiveness model (Javanbakht, Pharmacoecon Open, 2022) using data from the Phase 2 study of resmetirom. The cost-effectiveness model publication found that resmetirom is a potentially cost-effective treatment option for patients with NASH patients with significant liver fibrosis based on an analysis performed from a U.S. commercial payer perspective. 
 In the U.S., the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (“ICER”) performs value assessments of prescription drugs, medical tests, devices, and health system delivery innovations. Payers frequently review ICER reports when making coverage decisions about new therapies. In October 2022, ICER announced plans to perform a value assessment of resmetirom and obeticholic acid for the treatment of NASH. We have engaged in the assessment process by responding to data requests from ICER and providing public comment on ICER’s cost-effectiveness modeling methods. In February 2023, a “Draft Evidence Report” was released with ICER’s initial assessment of resmetirom cost-effectiveness. Threshold analyses were conducted by ICER to calculate the annual price needed to meet commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds for quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. In ICER’s draft assessment, the annual price to achieve $50,000 per QALY gained is $31,700. The annual price to achieve $100,000 per QALY gained is $39,400. The cost-effectiveness threshold analyses included in ICER’s Draft Evidence Report are one input we will consider as we develop the pricing strategy for resmetirom. Other inputs include primary market research with payers and our health economics outcomes research. We plan to finalize and announce any U.S. pricing of resmetirom following approval. 
 We are tailoring our commercial strategy in the U.S. to support access and reimbursement for patients with different types of insurance coverage. Based on an analysis of claims data, we estimate that approximately 55% of patients with NASH in the U.S. have commercial insurance, 35% are insured through Medicare (half with the Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy) and 10% through Medicaid. To support patient access and affordability, we intend to establish a specialty pharmacy network to distribute resmetirom and a patient services hub to help patients initiate and remain adherent to resmetirom therapy. 
 Based on market research and an assessment of the potential market opportunity for therapies to treat NASH with significant fibrosis, we have developed a commercial strategy for the launch of resmetirom that focuses on NASH specialist healthcare providers (hepatologists, gastroenterologists and a subset of endocrinologists) who already treat NASH patients with significant fibrosis. We estimate that there are 15,000 to 20,000 of these NASH specialists in the US. We believe that a specialty pharmaceutical sales force of up to 200 field sales representatives and account managers in the U.S. would be capable of reaching these healthcare providers during a launch of resmetirom. In addition to educating healthcare providers, we intend to launch direct-to-patient marketing efforts to improve awareness of NASH and resmetirom. Patient marketing initiatives will include unbranded NASH disease education resources prior to potential approval of resmetirom, followed by branded product advertising during the launch. 
 By 2030, we believe, including based on published studies, that the prevalence of NASH with compensated cirrhosis alone will be approximately 5.3 million patients across the US, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Japan. In market research, NASH specialists indicated that the unmet need in NASH with compensated cirrhosis is seen as higher than the unmet need in NASH with significant fibrosis because patients with compensated cirrhosis are closer to progressing to negative outcomes. Therefore, we believe that the 

 15 

urgency to treat NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis will be high and resmetirom may be used in a larger proportion of NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis (relative to NASH patients with significant fibrosis). 
 By 2030, we believe, including based on published research, that the prevalence of NASH with significant fibrosis and NASH with compensated cirrhosis collectively will be approximately 24.4 million patients across the US, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Japan. 
 In 2022, we conducted market research examining physician perspectives on resmetirom’s potential treatment profile for patients with compensated NASH cirrhosis. This research found that prescriber perceptions of efficacy and safety would improve if a medication were approved for use in patients with compensated NASH cirrhosis; more than 40% of physicians indicated that an approval for the NASH-compensated cirrhosis population would increase their willingness to prescribe for patients with significant fibrosis. Given that NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis require treatment from the same specialist physicians Madrigal is targeting for the launch of resmetirom in NASH with significant fibrosis, we anticipate that Madrigal will be able to support a potential expanded indication without a significant increase in the size of our commercial field force. 
 Over time, we believe primary care physicians will play a larger role in the management of patients with NASH, driven by factors that include improved disease awareness, uptake of noninvasive tests to screen and diagnose patients, and the growing global prevalence of NASH fueled by Western lifestyle. 
 We intend to commercialize resmetirom alone in the U.S. and to engage with a strategic partner or partners for commercializing resmetirom in all ex-U.S. territories. 
 We believe that the MAESTRO-NASH biopsy study results announced in December 2022 currently places resmetirom in a strong competitive position in Europe. In a draft reflection paper on regulatory requirements for the development of medicinal products for chronic non-infectious liver diseases, the EMA indicated that conditional approval of NASH therapies in Europe may require achievement of two composite endpoints – (i) resolution of NASH with no worsening of the stage of fibrosis and (ii) improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without any worsening of NASH – in a Phase 3 trial. The draft reflection paper states that “efficacy in these two composites should be demonstrated in co-primary fashion, meaning that both will have to independently demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference to placebo.” In the Phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH biopsy study, resmetirom achieved these composite endpoints. 
 Resmetirom in NASH 
 We are developing resmetirom for the treatment of non-cirrhotic NASH with fibrosis and NASH with compensated cirrhosis. Based on the scientific literature in human and animal studies, we believe that NASH livers in humans frequently have a deficiency in THR-ß activity that leads to features of NASH, including fatty liver, inflammation and fibrosis, and that treatment with resmetirom will replace this hormone deficiency and be an effective NASH treatment. We believe that resmetirom is an excellent candidate for the chronic treatment of NASH because of its safety and tolerability profile observed to date in healthy subjects, its effects in reducing cardiovascular risk factors such as LDL-C and TGs in early-stage clinical trials, and its multiple beneficial effects in animal models of NASH. CVD is the most common cause of death in patients with NASH. We have completed multiple studies in animal models of metabolic diseases, dyslipidemia and NASH in which resmetirom demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in liver TGs, insulin resistance, liver enzymes (which may be elevated in NASH), and markers of inflammation and fibrosis. We believe that resmetirom will treat the underlying lipotoxicity that drives the inflammation and liver cell damage observed in NASH patients, and after the underlying lipotoxicity is treated, NASH-related liver fibrosis will resolve as the liver regenerates. 
 Resmetirom NASH Phase 2 and 3 Clinical Studies 
 In October 2016, we initiated a Phase 2 proof of concept clinical trial in patients with liver biopsy documented NASH, including those with type-2 diabetes, dyslipidemia and hypertension. In the study we randomized 125 

 16 

NASH patients 2:1, resmetirom or placebo QD in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, study of once-daily resmetirom versus placebo in patients with NASH, including those with type-2 diabetes. Patients continued treatment through 36 weeks. The study was conducted in the United States. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the efficacy of resmetirom as measured by the reduction of liver fat at 12 weeks, and the secondary endpoint was to evaluate the efficacy of resmetirom as measured by a reduction of NASH, which was assessed by liver biopsy, at 36 weeks. Other secondary and exploratory endpoints included safety and tolerability, and effects on serum biomarkers at 12 and 36 weeks, lipid parameters, and biomarker measures of insulin sensitivity. We reached our top-line analysis of the primary endpoint in December 2017, and we reached our top-line analysis of the secondary endpoint (NASH assessment on liver biopsy) in May 2018. There was an extension study in a subset of the patients that completed the main 36-week study which was completed in 2019. Madrigal has ongoing Phase 3 resmetirom studies for patients with NASH or presumed NASH as discussed in detail in this report. 
 We believe that the designs of our Phase 2 and Phase 3 NASH studies are consistent with principles for NASH drug development outlined by the FDA in its public communications and draft guidance for industry and based on our past interactions with FDA, including our end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in 2019. 
 Because of the slow progression of NASH and the time required to conduct an outcomes trial that would evaluate clinical endpoints such as progression to cirrhosis or survival, the FDA recommends sponsors consider the following liver histological improvements as Phase 3 trial endpoints reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit to support accelerated approval under subpart H regulations: 
 Resolution of steatohepatitis on overall histopathological reading and no worsening of liver fibrosis; 
 Or 
 Improvement in liver fibrosis greater than or equal to one stage and no worsening of steatohepatitis; 
 Or 
 Both resolution of steatohepatitis and improvement in fibrosis. 
 In March 2019, the Company announced that it had initiated MAESTRO-NASH, a Phase 3 trial of resmetirom in patients with NASH. MAESTRO-NASH is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study of resmetirom in patients with liver biopsy-confirmed NASH and was initiated in March 2019. The subpart H portion of the study enrolled more than 1,000 patients with biopsy-proven NASH (at least half with F3 (advanced) fibrosis, the remainder F2 or F1B (moderate fibrosis) with a few earlier F1 patients), randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily resmetirom 80 mg, resmetirom 100 mg, or placebo. After 52 weeks of treatment, a second liver biopsy is performed. The dual primary surrogate endpoints on biopsy are NASH resolution with ≥2-point reduction in NAS (NAFLD Activity Score), and with no worsening of fibrosis OR a 1-point decrease in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS. Achievement of either primary endpoint is considered a successful trial outcome. A key secondary endpoint is lowering of LDL-C. 
 All patients enrolled in the MAESTRO-NASH study (up to 2,000 in total) continue on therapy after the initial 52-week treatment period for up to 54 months to accrue and measure hepatic clinical outcome events including progression to cirrhosis on biopsy (52 weeks and 54 months) and hepatic decompensation events, as well as all-cause mortality. 
 In December 2022, we reported topline results from the subpart H portion of the study: resmetirom achieved both primary endpoints with both daily oral doses, 80 mg and 100 mg, relative to placebo, as summarized in “- Key Developments” above. 
 In December 2019 the Company announced it had opened for enrollment MAESTRO-NAFLD-1, a 52-week, double-blind, placebo controlled Phase 3 clinical study in 700 patients with biopsy-confirmed or 

 17 

presumed NASH recruited from sites in the U.S. Key endpoints are safety, including safety biomarkers, LDL cholesterol, lipid biomarkers, and fibrosis biomarkers. Except for serial liver biopsies, the study protocol is similar to the MAESTRO-NASH study with resmetirom doses of 80 mg or 100 mg or placebo and includes key secondary lipid, MRI-PDFF and NASH biomarker endpoints. In addition, MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 includes an open label arm in which up to 100 patients will be dosed with 100 mg resmetirom. Enrollment objectives for this study have been exceeded, with approximately 1,200 patients enrolled overall. In October 2020 we completed enrollment of the double-blind, placebo controlled arms of the study. The MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 study will help support the adequacy of the safety database at the time of NDA submission for subpart H approval or treatment of NASH in patients with F2 or F3 fibrosis. 
 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 also includes an open label arm with approximately 170 non-cirrhotic patients with NASH treated with 100 mg resmetirom. Data from this open label portion of the MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 study have been reported at various professional society conferences, demonstrating statistically significant reductions from baseline in liver fat as assessed by MRI-PDFF and Fibroscan CAP, as well as reductions in liver stiffness as determined by MRE and Fibroscan TE (a surrogate for liver fibrosis). Markers of liver fibrosis and inflammation were also reduced by resmetirom relative to baseline. Additionally, atherogenic lipids, including LDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, triglycerides, and lipoprotein (a) were reduced relative to baseline. The adverse event profile in this open label cohort has been similar to that observed in Phase 2. The MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 open label arm over-enrolled and includes more than 150 patients with NASH and compensated cirrhosis to obtain a preliminary assessment of the use of resmetirom in patients with more advanced disease. 
 In January 2022, Madrigal announced topline results from the Phase 3 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 safety study of resmetirom. Primary and key secondary endpoints from the double-blind placebo-controlled 969-patient portion of the study were achieved, as described herein. See “ – Key Developments” above. 
 Collaborations 
 VIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or VIA, entered into a research, development and commercialization agreement, or the Roche Agreement, with Roche, on December 18, 2008. We subsequently assumed all of VIA’s rights in, to and under, and all of VIA’s obligations under, the Roche Agreement pursuant to an asset purchase agreement, dated September 14, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of the Roche Agreement, we, as successor-in-interest to VIA, assumed control of all development and commercialization of resmetirom and will hold exclusive worldwide rights for all potential indications. Under the Roche Agreement, Roche exclusively licensed certain patent rights and know-how relating to resmetirom in exchange for consideration consisting of an upfront payment, milestone payments, the remainder of which total $8 million and are tied to regulatory approval in the United States and Europe of resmetirom or any derivative product, and single-digit royalty payments based on net sales of resmetirom and any derivative products, subject to certain reductions. In 2011, we commenced Phase 1 clinical trials and subsequently paid Roche a related milestone payment. In October 2016, we commenced a Phase 2 study in NASH and subsequently paid Roche a related milestone payment. In 2019, we commenced a Phase 3 study in NASH and subsequently paid Roche a $2 million related milestone payment. Except as described above, we have not achieved any additional product development or regulatory milestones under the Roche Agreement and have generated no net sales of products developed from resmetirom. 
 Pursuant to the Roche Agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to conduct clinical and commercial development programs for products containing resmetirom. If we determine that it is not reasonable to continue clinical trials or other development of resmetirom, we may elect to cease further development and Roche may terminate the license. If we determine not to pursue the development or commercialization of resmetirom in certain jurisdictions, including the United States, Roche may terminate the license for such territories. The Roche Agreement will expire, unless earlier terminated pursuant to other provisions of the agreement, on the last to occur of (i) the expiration of the last valid claim of a licensed patent covering the manufacture, use or sale of products containing resmetirom, or (ii) ten years after the first sale of a product containing resmetirom. 

 18 

 Competition 
 The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive. We will face competition with respect to all product candidates we may develop or commercialize in the future from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies worldwide. The key factors affecting the success of any approved product will be its efficacy, safety profile, drug interactions, method of administration, pricing, reimbursement and level of promotional activity relative to those of competing drugs. 
 
 • 
 
 Our potential competitors may have substantially greater financial, technical, and personnel resources than us. In addition, many of these competitors have significantly greater commercial infrastructures. Our ability to compete successfully will depend largely on our ability to leverage our collective experience in drug discovery, development and commercialization to: 
 
 • 
 
 discover and develop medicines that are differentiated from other products in the market, 
 
 • 
 
 obtain patent and/or proprietary protection for our products and technologies; 
 
 • 
 
 obtain required regulatory approvals; 
 
 • 
 
 obtain a commercial partner; 
 
 • 
 
 commercialize our drugs, if approved; and 
 
 • 
 
 attract and retain high-quality research, development and commercial personnel. 
 
 There are currently no therapeutic products approved and marketed for the treatment of NASH in North America and Europe. There are several commercially available products that are currently used off-label for NASH, such as vitamin E, an antioxidant, insulin sensitizers, such as pioglitazone, anti-hyperlipidemic agents, such as gemfibrozil, pentoxifylline, ursodiol and others. In addition, there are numerous drugs in development for the treatment of NASH. We are aware of several companies that have product candidates in clinical development for the treatment of NASH, including Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Galectin Therapeutics, Inc., Galmed Medical Research Ltd., Cirius Therapeutics, Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Takeda, Inventiva, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Inc., Merck & Co., Lilly, Genentech, Sanofi S.A., NGM Biopharmaceutical, Viking Therapeutics, Akero Therapeutics, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, 89Bio Inc., Axcella, Can-Fite, Hepion, NorthSea, Terns, Zydus Cadila and MedImmune LLC, Altimune, Poxel, Ascletis Pharma, and there are other companies with candidates in earlier stages of development. Given resmetirom’s actions on the underlying biological pathways across the spectrum of early to late stages of NASH, its CV beneficial effects, and its complementary mechanism to other therapies, we believe that resmetirom has the potential to be used alone or in combination with some of these potential NASH products. 
 Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists play an increasing role in the management of patients with diabetes and obesity, and are being studied for the treatment of NASH in Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials. Based on analysis of claims data, Madrigal estimates that approximately 6% of ICD-10 coded patients with NASH in the U.S. are currently being treated with GLP-1 agonists for any indication. As of the date of this filing, there have been no successful Phase 3 trials evaluating a GLP-1 agonist for the treatment of NASH. Madrigal believes that resmetirom should have a competitive advantage based on its liver-directed efficacy, tolerability profile and once-daily oral dosing. Madrigal anticipates that combination therapy with resmetirom and GLP-1 agonists may be used to manage NASH patients with significant fibrosis and comorbiditis such as diabetes or obesity Madrigal believes the introduction of GLP-1 medications for the treatment of NASH should not have a material adverse effect on market potential of resmetirom, if approved. 
 Sales and Marketing 
 Madrigal has established a commercial leadership team with expertise in launching pharmaceutical products. As of the date of this filing, Madrigal has no field sales team and no product distribution capabilities. As resmetirom nears potential accelerated approval in the U.S., we intend to expand our marketing organization, establish a sales organization, and build distribution capabilities to commercialize resmetirom. 

 19 

 Manufacturing 
 We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely, and expect to rely, on third-party contract manufacturers, or CMOs, for all required starting materials, API and finished product for the manufacture of any product candidates that we may develop for larger-scale preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial quantities of any drug candidates that are approved. We do not have long-term supply agreements for any of our product candidates and regularly obtain supplies and services related to our product candidates from CMO’s on a purchase order basis. We currently have a single source for API and finished product for resmetirom and are developing a second source for API. We plan to continue to rely on CMOs for API, finished product, packaging, storage, and distribution for both clinical supplies and any of our product candidates that receive health authority approval. 
 Research and Development 
 Research and development expenses primarily consist of costs associated with our research activities, including the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates. Our research and development expenses were $245.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2022, $205.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, and $184.8 million for year ended December 31, 2020. The increase in research and development expenses was primarily due to the advancement of clinical programs to Phase 3 studies, further API manufacturing studies and the continuation of preclinical studies. We expect research and development expenses to increase over time as we advance our clinical and preclinical development programs for resmetirom. 
 Intellectual Property 
 We will be able to protect our technology and products from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent we are covered by valid and enforceable patents or such knowledge is effectively maintained as trade secrets. Patents and other proprietary rights are thus an essential element of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our competitive position. 
 Our success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our current and future product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others, and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing United States and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, and maintaining the confidentiality of inventions and improvements that are important to the development of our business. 
 As of December 7, 2022, we own or co-own: five United States and 38 foreign issued patents; five United States and 43 foreign pending patent applications; and three international patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Each of these patents and applications relates to resmetirom, including composition-of-matter, certain dosage forms, methods of making resmetirom, its use in the treatment of key disease indications, or other THR beta analogs and uses thereof. Our current patent portfolio covers the United States and certain other jurisdictions worldwide. The three international patent applications can be used as the basis for multiple additional patent applications worldwide. In addition, pursuant to the Roche Agreement, Roche granted us an exclusive license to certain United States and foreign patents and patent applications owned by Roche and Roche know-how relating to resmetirom. The Roche Agreement imposes various diligence, milestone payment, royalty payment, insurance, indemnification, and other obligations on us. 
 Issued patents directed to resmetirom, including certain dosage forms, have statutory expiration dates between 2026 and 2037, excluding any patent term extensions or equivalents thereof that might be available following the grant of marketing authorizations. We have pending patent applications for resmetirom that, if issued, would be expected to expire in the United States and in countries outside of the United States between 2033 and 2042, excluding any patent term adjustment that might be available following the grant of the patent and any patent term extensions that might be available following the grant of marketing authorizations. We have 

 20 

a pending patent application for other THR beta analogs that, if issued, would be expected to expire in the United States and in countries outside of the United States in 2043, excluding any patent term adjustment that might be available following the grant of the patent and any patent term extensions that might be available following the grant of marketing authorizations. 
 Our trademarks are protected under the common law and/or by registration in the United States and other countries. We seek to protect our proprietary processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our personnel, including consultants and commercial partners. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information. 
 Orphan Drug Designation 
 Some potential target disease indications for resmetirom are rare diseases or may be designated rare diseases and we plan to pursue orphan drug designation where possible. If granted, each such designation might provide for regulatory exclusivity for seven years in the United States and ten years in the EU from the date of product approval for individual indications. 
 Government Regulation 
 Government Regulation and Product Approval 
 Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, monitoring and reporting, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of drug products such as those we are developing. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the new drug application, or NDA, process before it may be legally marketed in the United States, and must be approved by foreign regulatory authorities via various analogous procedures before it can be marketed in the applicable country. The animal and other non-clinical data and the results of human clinical trials performed under an Investigational New Drug application, or IND, and under similar foreign applications will become part of the NDA. 
 United States Drug Development Process 
 In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state and local statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters and other types of enforcement-related letters, requesting product recalls, product seizures, changes to the conditions surrounding marketing approval such as labeling changes or changes to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigations Strategies, or REMS, program, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a drug or biologic may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: 
 
 • 
 
 completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies, some in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practices, or GLP, the Animal Welfare Act administered and enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture, and other applicable regulations; 
 
 • 
 
 submission to the FDA of an IND which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; 
 
 21 

 • 
 
 approval by an institutional review board, or IRB, before each trial may be initiated at each clinical site; 
 
 • 
 
 performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials under protocols submitted to the FDA and reviewed and approved by each IRB, conducted in accordance with federal regulations and according to Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use; 
 
 • 
 
 submission to the FDA of an NDA; 
 
 • 
 
 completion of registration batches and validation of the manufacturing process to show ability to consistently produce quality batches of product; 
 
 • 
 
 satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable; 
 
 • 
 
 satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; and 
 
 • 
 
 FDA review and approval of the NDA. 
 
 Once a pharmaceutical candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies, to assess the safety and quality of the product. Animal studies must be performed in compliance with federal regulations and requirements, including, as applicable, GLP and the Animal Welfare Act. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. The sponsor 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 trial lends itself to an efficacy evaluation. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If during this 30-day period the FDA does not raise any concerns or issues that must be addressed prior to the commencement of clinical trials or does not impose a clinical hold, the IND becomes effective 30 days following the FDA’s receipt of the IND and the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during studies due to safety concerns or non-compliance, or other reasons. 
 All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with GCP. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually. In addition, timely safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events or animal test results that suggest a significant risk to human subjects. An IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve each protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution and must also approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each trial subject or his or her legal representative, monitor the study until completed and otherwise comply with IRB regulations. Foreign studies conducted under an IND must meet the same requirements that apply to studies being conducted in the U.S. Data from a foreign study not conducted under an IND may be submitted in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data. 
 Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: 
 
 • 
 
 Phase 1: The product candidate is initially introduced into humans. Phase 1 clinical trials are typically conducted in healthy human subjects, but in some situations are conducted in patients with the target disease or condition. Phase 1 clinical trials are generally designed to evaluate the 
 
 22 

safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion of the product candidate in humans, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness. 
 
 • 
 
 Phase 2: This phase involves studies in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. 
 
 • 
 
 Phase 3: This phase involves trials undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. These studies are intended to establish the overall risk-benefit ratio of the product candidate and provide, if appropriate, an adequate basis for product approval and product labeling. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the product candidate, although a single Phase 3 clinical trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in certain instances. 
 
 The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate 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 has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 testing may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. Further, success in either preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials does not assure success in later-stage clinical trials. Sponsors of all controlled clinical trials, except for Phase 1 trials, are required to submit certain clinical trial information for inclusion in the public clinical trial registry and results data bank maintained by the National Institutes of Health, which are publicly available at http://clinicaltrials.gov. 
 During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end of Phase 2 meeting to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial that they believe will support approval of the new drug. 
 Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. 
 United States 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, proposed labeling, and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for a specific indication. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of user fees under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of a submitted NDA within 60 days from receipt to ensure that the application is sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts the application for filing. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA’s PDUFA performance goals generally provide for action on an NDA within 10 months of the 

 23 

 60-day filing date. That deadline can be extended under certain circumstances, including by the FDA’s requests for additional information. The targeted action date can also be shortened to within 6 months of the 60-day filing date for products that are granted priority review designation because they are intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. In addition, the FDA often will conduct a bioresearch monitoring inspection of the clinical trial sites involved in conducting pivotal studies to ensure data integrity and compliance with applicable GCP requirements. The FDA may refer the NDA to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. 
 At the end of the review period, the FDA may issue an approval letter following satisfactory completion of all aspects of the review process, or the FDA may issue a complete response letter, or CRL, which generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require additional clinical or other data or impose other conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA. If and when deficiencies outlined in a CRL have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA may issue an approval letter. The FDA’s PDUFA review goal is to review such resubmissions within two or six months of receipt, depending on the type of information included. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval of a resubmitted NDA. 
 NDAs receive either standard or priority review. An application for a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease may qualify for priority review. Priority review for an NDA for a new molecular entity will be six months from the date that the NDA is filed. The FDA has ten months in which to complete its initial review of a standard new molecular entity NDA. The FDA does not always meet its goal dates and in certain circumstances the goal date may be extended. Priority review does not change the standard for approval, but may expedite the approval process. 
 Product candidates may qualify for review and approval under the subpart H-accelerated approval pathway if the candidates are intended to treat a serious condition, provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments, and demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on an intermediate clinical endpoint. In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA requires that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform confirmatory adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. Accelerated approval does not change the standards for approval. All promotional materials for drug candidates approved under the accelerated approval pathway are subject to prior review by the FDA. If a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval trial with “due diligence” FDA may withdraw the drug from the market. 
 Further, on December 29, 2022, Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which included the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA). Under FDORA, FDA must specify the conditions for any post-approval studies by the date of the accelerated approval and gives the agency much flexibility in setting forth such conditions, which may include enrollment targets, study protocol and milestones – including the target date of study completion. FDA may also require, as appropriate, that certain post-approval studies be 

 24 

underway prior to accelerated approval or within a specified time from the date of approval. Accelerated approval sponsors must submit progress reports every six months on required post-approval trials. 
 An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product candidate with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be further limited to specific diseases, dosages or patient populations, or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. In addition, the FDA may require a sponsor to conduct Phase 4 testing which involves clinical trials designed to further assess a drug’s safety and effectiveness after NDA approval, and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products which have been commercialized. 
 The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, which was enacted in 2012, made permanent the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, which requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric studies for most drugs and biologics, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs and supplements thereto must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric studies for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug or biologic is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric studies are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric studies begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation. 
 Patent Term Restoration and Regulatory Exclusivities 
 Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our product candidates, some of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as 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’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND, and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application, except that the period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent and within 60 days of approval. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. 
 The Hatch-Waxman Act also provides periods of regulatory exclusivity for products that would serve as a reference listed drug, or RLD, for an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or application submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, or 505(b)(2) application. If a product is a new chemical entity, or NCE—generally meaning that the active moiety has never before been approved in any drug—there is a period of five years from the product’s approval during which the FDA may not accept for filing any ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a drug with the same active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application may be submitted after four years, however, if the sponsor of the application makes a “Paragraph IV” certification. 
 A product that is not an NCE may qualify for a three-year period of exclusivity if the NDA contains new clinical data (other than bioavailability studies), derived from studies conducted by or for the sponsor, that were necessary for approval. In that instance, the exclusivity period does not preclude filing or review of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application; rather, the FDA is precluded from granting final approval to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) 

 25 

application until three years after approval of the RLD. Additionally, the exclusivity applies only to the conditions of approval that required submission of the clinical data. 
 Once the FDA accepts for filing an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application containing a Paragraph IV certification, the applicant must within 20 days provide notice to the RLD NDA holder and patent owner that the application has been submitted and provide the factual and legal basis for the applicant’s assertion that the patent is invalid or not infringed. If the NDA holder or patent owner files suit against the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant for patent infringement within 45 days of receiving the Paragraph IV notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a period of 30 months or the resolution of the underlying suit, whichever is earlier. If the RLD has NCE exclusivity and the notice is given and suit filed during the fifth year of exclusivity, the regulatory stay extends until seven and a half years after the RLD approval. The FDA may approve the proposed product before the expiration of the regulatory stay if a court finds the patent invalid or not infringed or if the court shortens the period because the parties have failed to cooperate in expediting the litigation. 
 Pediatric exclusivity is another type of marketing exclusivity available in the United States. The FDASIA made permanent the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, which provides for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children in response to a written request from the FDA, or a Written Request. If the Written Request does not include studies in neonates, the FDA is required to include its rationale for not requesting those studies. The FDA may request studies on approved or unapproved indications in separate Written Requests. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described studies. 
 Orphan Drug Designation 
 Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or 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 drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. 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 that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication, except in very limited circumstances, for seven years. Orphan drug exclusivity, however, also could block the approval of one of our product candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. 
 The FDA also administers an orphan drug clinical research grants program, whereby researchers may apply for funding to conduct clinical trials to support the approval of drugs, biologics, medical devices, and medical foods for rare diseases and conditions. A product does not have to be designated as an orphan drug to be eligible for the grant program. An application for an orphan grant should propose one discrete clinical study to facilitate FDA approval of the product for a rare disease or condition. The study may address an unapproved new product or an unapproved new use for a product already on the market. 
 Expedited Programs 
 The FDA maintains several programs to facilitate and expedite the development and review of drug applications that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a 

 26 

disease or condition, including Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Designation, Priority Review (discussed above in United States Review and Approval Processes), and the Accelerated Approval pathway (discussed above in United States Review and Approval Processes). Under the Fast Track Designation program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a fast track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. Under the Fast Track Designation program, the FDA may grant fast track designation for a product candidate if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need. Features of Fast Track Designation include more frequent interactions with the review team, and the possibility of rolling review. 
 Under the Breakthrough Designation Program, FDA may grant a drug Breakthrough Therapy Designation if it is intended to treat a serious condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement on a clinically significant endpoint over available therapies. Features of Breakthrough Therapy Designation include intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program, an organizational commitment by the agency involving senior managers in a proactive, cross-disciplinary review of the drug application, and the possibility of rolling review. 
 Post-Approval Requirements 
 Once an approval is granted, products are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA may withdraw the approval if, among other things, compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if safety or efficacy problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on product marketing or even withdrawal of approval for the product application. If new safety issues are identified following approval, the FDA may require the NDA sponsor to take certain measures, such as revising the approved labeling to reflect the new safety information, conducting post-market studies or clinical trials to assess the new safety information, and/or implementing or changing a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, program to mitigate newly-identified risks. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs 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 and regulations. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our product candidates. Future inspections by the FDA and other regulatory agencies may identify compliance issues at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct. 
 Any drug products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the drug, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, drug sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. The FDA strictly regulates labeling, advertising, promotion and other types of information on products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. 
 From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or interpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. 

 27 

 Foreign Regulation 
 In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of its products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the European Union, before we may commence clinical trials or 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 EU regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure, which is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and designated orphan medicines, and optional for other medicines which are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the EMA where it will be evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and a favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU member states within 67 days of receipt of the opinion. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more “concerned” member states based on an assessment of an application performed by one member state, known as the “reference” member state. Under the decentralized approval procedure, an applicant submits an application, or dossier, and related materials to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a member state does not recognize the marketing authorization, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states. In addition to the centralized procedure and the decentralized procedure, it may also be possible to obtain a marketing authorization for one single EU Member State through a national procedure. Under a mutual recognition procedure, a national marketing authorization granted by one EU Member State may be recognized by one or more other EU Member States resulting in harmonized marketing authorizations in those EU Member States. 
 When conducting clinical trials in the EU, we must adhere to the provisions of the EU Clinical Trials Directive and the laws and regulations of the EU Member States implementing them. These provisions require, among other things, that the prior authorization of an Ethics Committee and the submission and approval of a clinical trial authorization application be obtained in each Member State before commencing a clinical trial in that Member State. On January 31, 2022, the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation) came into effect. The Clinical Trials Regulation applies to clinical trials in all countries of the European Economic Area (EEA, i.e., the EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). The Clinical Trials Regulation allows investigators to start and conduct a clinical trial in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive during a transitional period of one year after the application date (i.e., January 31, 2022). Clinical trials authorized under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2023 can continue to be conducted under the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. An application to transition ongoing trials from the current Clinical Trials Directive to the new Clinical Trials Regulation will need to be submitted and authorized in time before the end of the transitional period. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation introduces a complete overhaul of the existing regulation of clinical trials for medicinal products in the EU, including a new coordinated procedure for authorization of clinical trials that is similar to the mutual recognition procedure for marketing authorization of medicinal products, and increased obligations on sponsors to publish clinical trial results. 

 28 

 As in the United States, it may be possible in foreign countries to obtain a period of market and/or data exclusivity that would have the effect of postponing the entry into the marketplace of a competitor’s generic product. For example, in the EU, if any of our products receive marketing approval in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which is comprised of the 27 member states of the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, we expect that we will benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of marketing exclusivity. An additional one-year extension of marketing exclusivity is possible if during the data exclusivity period we obtain an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications that is deemed to bring a significant clinical benefit compared to existing therapies. The data exclusivity period begins on the date of the product’s first marketing authorization in the EU and prevents biosimilars from relying on the holder of the marketing authorization for the reference biological medicine’s pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data for a period of eight years. After eight years, a biosimilar product application may be submitted and the sponsoring companies may rely on the marketing authorization holder’s data. However, a biosimilar medicine cannot launch until 2 years later (or a total of ten years after the first marketing authorization in the EU of the innovator product), or 3 years later (or a total of eleven years after the first marketing authorization in the EU of the innovator product) if the marketing authorization holder obtains marketing authorization for a new indication with significant clinical benefit within the eight year data exclusivity period. 
 As in the United States, a sponsor may apply for designation of a product as an orphan drug for the treatment of a specific indication in the EU before the application for marketing authorization is made. Orphan drugs in Europe 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 orphan-designated product. 
 Reimbursement 
 Significant uncertainty exists regarding the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. In the United States, sales of any products for which we may receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in significant part on the availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. 
 Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for, examining the medical necessity of, and assessing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of any products, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. Our drug candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover the product after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit. 
 The U.S. government and state legislatures have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid health care costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended the ACA, contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products, including, for example, increased rebates for drugs reimbursed 

 29 

by Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales for branded prescription drugs to federal health care programs. Adoption of government controls and measures, and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceuticals. 
 On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, which, among other things, establishes Medicare Part B and Part D inflation rebate schemes. Failure to timely pay a Part B or Part D inflation rebate is subject to a civil monetary penalty. The IRA also creates a drug price negotiation program under which the prices for Medicare units of certain high Medicare spend drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition will be capped by reference to, among other things, a specified non-federal average manufacturer price, starting in 2026. Failure to comply with requirements under the drug price negotiation program is subject to an excise tax and/or a civil monetary penalty. The IRA further makes changes to the Medicare Part D benefit, including a limit on annual out-of-pocket costs, and a change in manufacturer liability on account of a new discount program which could negatively affect the profitability of our product candidates. Failure to pay a discount under this new program will be subject to a civil monetary penalty. Congress continues to examine various policy proposals that may result in pressure on the prices of prescription drugs in the government health benefit programs. The IRA or other legislative changes could impact the market conditions for our product candidate. The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, an emphasis on cost containment measures in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. 
 In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU 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 products. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to be significantly lower 
 Human Capital 
 As of February 20, 2023, we had 92 full-time employees, including 66 engaged in research, development, and regulatory activities, and 26 in executive, commercial, general and administrative functions, and multiple part-time consultants. We believe that our future success will be shaped by our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. We provide our employees with competitive salaries and bonuses, opportunities for equity ownership in the Company, and an employment package that is designed to promote well-being across all aspects of their lives, including health care, disability, retirement investment options and paid time off. 
 General Information 
 We were incorporated in Delaware in September 2011. Our principal executive offices are located at 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 200, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Our Internet website address is www.madrigalpharma.com. No portion of our website is incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 
 
 30 

 We advise you to read this Annual Report on Form 10-K in conjunction with other reports and documents that we file from time to time with the SEC. In particular, please read our definitive proxy statement, which will be filed with the SEC in connection with our 2023 annual meeting of stockholders, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and any current reports on Form 8-K that we may file from time to time. You may obtain copies of these reports after the date of this annual report directly from us or from the SEC at its website at www.sec.gov. We make our periodic and current reports available on our internet website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. 

 31
MADRIGAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 10-K

Item 1. Business
