NewAmsterdam Pharma Co N.V. 10-K

Item 1. Business Overview We are a late-stage biopharmaceutical company whose mission is to improve patient care in populations with metabolic diseases where currently approved therapies have not been adequate or well tolerated. We seek to fill a significant unmet need for a safe, well tolerated and convenient low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (“LDL-C”) lowering therapy. In multiple phase 3 studies, we are investigating obicetrapib, an oral, low-dose and once-daily cholesterol ester transfer protein (“CETP”) inhibitor, alone or as a fixed-dose combination with ezetimibe, as preferred LDL-C lowering therapies to be used as an adjunct to statin therapy for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease (“CVD”) with elevated LDL-C, for whom existing therapies are not sufficiently effective or well tolerated. We believe that CETP inhibition may also play a role in other indications by potentially mitigating the risk of developing diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease or Type 2 diabetes. CVD is a leading cause of death worldwide and the top cause of death in the United States. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (“ASCVD”) is primarily caused by atherosclerosis, which involves the build-up of fatty material within the inner walls of the arteries. Atherosclerosis is the primary cause of heart attacks, strokes and peripheral vascular disease. One of the most important risk factors for ASCVD is hypercholesterolemia, which refers to elevated LDL-C levels within the body, commonly known as high cholesterol. A significant proportion of patients with high cholesterol do not achieve acceptable LDL-C levels using statin therapy alone. We estimate that in the United States there are approximately 30 million patients that are not at their risk-based LDL-C goals despite treatment with lipid lowering therapy, including approximately 13 million with ASCVD. Existing non-statin treatment options have been largely unable to address the needs of patients with high cholesterol due to limited efficacy, an inconvenient injectable administration route and market access restrictions. It is estimated that over 75% of ASCVD and heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (“HeFH”) outpatients prefer oral drugs to injectable therapies. Our product candidate, obicetrapib, is a next-generation, oral, low-dose CETP inhibitor that we are developing to potentially overcome the limitations of current LDL-C lowering treatments. We believe that obicetrapib has the potential to be a once-daily oral CETP inhibitor for lowering LDL-C, if approved. In our Phase 2 ROSE2 clinical trial evaluating obicetrapib in combination with ezetimibe as an adjunct to high-intensity statin therapy, obicetrapib met its primary and secondary endpoints, with statistically significant reductions in LDL-C and apolipoprotein B (“ApoB”) observed. In five of our Phase 2 clinical trials, TULIP, ROSE, OCEAN, ROSE2 and our Japan Phase 2b clinical trial, evaluating obicetrapib as a monotherapy or a combination therapy with ezetimibe 10 mg, we observed statistically significant LDL-C lowering with side effects similar in frequency and severity to placebo including with respect to muscle related side effects, and drug-related treatment-emergent serious adverse events (“TESAEs”). We have observed a favorable tolerability profile for obicetrapib in an aggregate of over 800 patients with low or moderately elevated LDL-C levels (“dyslipidemia”) in our clinical trials to date. Furthermore, we believe that obicetrapib’s oral delivery, demonstrated activity at low doses, chemical properties and tolerability make it well-suited for combination approaches. We are developing a fixed dose combination of obicetrapib 10 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg, which has been observed to demonstrate even greater LDL-C reduction in our Phase 2b ROSE2 clinical trial. Lowering of LDL-C, has been associated with major adverse cardiovascular events ("MACE") benefit in trials of LDL-C lowering drugs, including the REVEAL trial with the CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib. We are performing a cardiovascular outcomes trial (“CVOT”) to reconfirm this relationship. Our goal is to develop and commercialize an LDL-C lowering monotherapy and a fixed-dose combination therapy, which offers the advantage of a single, low dose, once-daily oral pill, and fulfills the significant unmet need for an effective and convenient LDL-C lowering therapy. If we obtain marketing approval, we intend to commercialize obicetrapib for patients with ASCVD and/or HeFH and elevated levels of LDL-C despite being treated with currently available optimal lipid lowering therapy. We have partnered with A. Menarini International Licensing S.A., part of Menarini Group (“Menarini”), providing them with the exclusive rights to commercialize obicetrapib in a single unit dose of 10 mg or less, either as a sole active ingredient product or in a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe, in the majority of European countries, if approved. Subject to receipt of marketing approval, our current plan is to pursue development and commercialization of obicetrapib in the United States ourselves, and to consider additional partners for jurisdictions outside of the United States and the European Union (the “EU”), including in Japan and China. In addition to our partnership with Menarini, we may in the future utilize a variety of types of collaboration, license, monetization, distribution and other arrangements with other third parties relating to the development or commercialization, once approved, of obicetrapib or future product candidates or indications. We are also continually evaluating the potential acquisition or license of new product candidates. 6 The following table summarizes our current clinical programs: * Other than as noted, the pipeline represents trials that are currently ongoing. Projections are subject to inherent limitations. Actual results may differ from expectations. The timing of regulatory submissions is subject to additional discussions with regulators. We are conducting two Phase 3 pivotal clinical trials, BROADWAY and BROOKLYN, to evaluate obicetrapib as a monotherapy used as an adjunct to maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-C lowering in patients with ASCVD and or HeFH. We completed enrollment for BROOKLYN in April 2023 and for BROADWAY in July 2023. Over 2,500 patients have been randomized in the BROADWAY trial and over 350 patients have been randomized in the BROOKLYN trial. We currently expect to report top-line data from BROOKLYN in the third quarter of 2024 and from BROADWAY in the fourth quarter of 2024. In March 2022, we commenced our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT, which is designed to assess the potential of obicetrapib to reduce occurrences of MACE, including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and non-elective coronary revascularization in at least 9,000 patients. We expect to complete enrollment in PREVAIL in the first quarter of 2024 and report top-line data in 2026. On June 5, 2023, we reported top-line results from our Phase 2b dose-finding trial of obicetrapib as an adjunct to stable statin therapy in patients with dyslipidemia in Japan, and on September 21, 2023, reported initial data from our Phase 2a clinical trial evaluating obicetrapib in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. We are also investigating obicetrapib as a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe, an oral cholesterol absorption inhibitor and LDL-C lowering therapy, and plan to seek approval for this fixed dose combination in parallel with obicetrapib monotherapy. In our Phase 2 ROSE2 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of obicetrapib plus ezetimibe compared to obicetrapib and placebo alone. On June 3, 2023, we reported data from the Phase 2 ROSE2 trial, which met its primary and secondary endpoints. In parallel with the ROSE2 trial, we formulated two prototype fixed dose combination tablets of obicetrapib and ezetimibe. These formulations were compared to the co-administration of obicetrapib and ezetimibe in a pilot bioequivalence trial, which was completed in the first half of 2023. Based on the results of this pilot bioequivalence trial and the data and learnings from our ROSE2 trial, we have selected a formulation for a fixed-dose combination tablet of obicetrapib and ezetimibe and we anticipate initiating TANDEM, a Phase 3 pivotal trial, to evaluate 10 mg obicetrapib and 10 mg ezetimibe as a fixed-dose combination used as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-lowering in patients with HeFH, ASCVD or ASCVD risk equivalents, in the first quarter of 2024. We anticipate enrolling approximately 400 patients in our TANDEM trial and releasing topline data in the first quarter of 2025. Our goal is to submit a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for the fixed dose combination shortly after submitting an NDA for obicetrapib as a monotherapy. We expect that efficacy and safety data from BROADWAY and BROOKLYN will be described in the fixed dose combination product label, if approved. We plan to seek approval of obicetrapib in the United States, the EU, Japan, China and the United Kingdom. We are executing multiple Phase 3 trials simultaneously, including our Phase 3 BROADWAY trial and PREVAIL CVOT, which both launched in the first quarter of 2022, with clinical plans that incorporate feedback from the FDA, the EMA, the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in Japan (“PMDA”) and the China National Medical Products Administration in China (“NMPA”). We believe that CETP inhibition may also play a role in other indications by potentially mitigating the risk of developing diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease or diabetes. Evidence suggests that cholesterol accumulation in the brain is a precursor to Alzheimer’s disease. For example, rodents lack the CETP gene and are resistant to Alzheimer’s disease. In early preclinical studies, when the human CETP gene is 7 knocked into a mouse, the cholesterol content of the mouse brain was observed to increase by 25%; when combined with the gene for the amyloid precursor protein, hypothesized to be a driver of Alzheimer’s disease, the risk of developing disease analogous to Alzheimer’s disease was observed to greatly increase in the double transgenic mice. In a preclinical study, we observed that CETP inhibition promoted cholesterol removal from the brain and improved cognition. We commenced a Phase 2a open-label and single-arm trial in early 2022 in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease and the apolipoprotein E4 (“ApoE4”) naturally occurring variant to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib. A total of 13 patients were given 10 mg obicetrapib and followed for 24 weeks. In September 2023, we announced initial data from this trial. We observed reductions in the levels of 24-hydroxycholesterol and 27-hydroxycholestrol of 11% and 12%, respectively, in the cerebrospinal fluid (“CSF”) compared to baseline. In addition, an increase of 8% compared to baseline in the Aβ42/40 ratio in patients’ plasma was observed and pTau181 levels were observed to be stable. Overall, obicetrapib was observed to be well-tolerated. No serious adverse events (“AEs”) were reported, nor were any AEs considered to be related to the trial drug. Clinically demonstrated anti-diabetic benefits have been observed with CETP inhibition in Phase 3 CVOTs that, if seen in obicetrapib, would differentiate it from current treatment alternatives, especially statin therapy. We are planning preclinical studies to examine the potential of obicetrapib for patients suffering from diabetes and have included new onset of type 2 diabetes as an endpoint in our PREVAIL CVOT, as measured by AEs indicating Type 2 diabetes, initiation of anti-diabetes medication after confirmed diabetes diagnosis or high levels of hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose. Our Management Team and Investors We are led by a world-class team of industry veterans, including some of the world’s preeminent cardiometabolic experts. Dr. Michael Davidson, our Chief Executive Officer and a member of our board of directors (the “Board of Directors”), is a leading expert in the field of lipidology and is a seasoned executive who served as founder and Chief Executive Officer of Corvidia Therapeutics, Inc. and founder and Chief Medical Officer of Omthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In addition, Dr. Davidson is board-certified in internal medicine, cardiology and clinical lipidology and has extensive experience designing, managing and evaluating clinical research. Dr. John Kastelein, our founder and Chief Scientific Officer and a member of the Board of Directors, is Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the Department of Vascular Medicine at the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam. Dr. Kastelein was a co-founder of uniQure N.V. and Xenon Pharmaceuticals Inc. His clinical research on the development of novel therapies for CVD and the genetic basis of dyslipidemia is widely published, and he serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Vascular Research Network, a site maintenance organization comprising dozens of hospitals in the Netherlands that are involved in clinical trials for cardiometabolic disease. Douglas Kling, our Chief Operating Officer, is an expert in the development of drugs to treat dyslipidemia and CVD, and has managed clinical operations at both Corvidia Therapeutics, Inc. and Omthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Ian Somaiya, our Chief Financial Officer, has nearly three decades of experience in senior leadership roles in the biopharmaceutical industry. Mr. Somaiya most recently served as CFO and Chief Business Officer of Elucida Oncology and, before that, as CFO of TCR 2 Therapeutics, where he guided the company through its initial public offering and two subsequent follow-on offerings, as well as led the company’s finance, reporting, business development and investor relations functions. Prior to joining TCR 2 Therapeutics, Mr. Somaiya was a managing director and head of biotechnology research at BMO Capital Markets. He also served as a managing director and equity analyst at Nomura Securities, Piper Jaffray and Thomas Weisel Partners. In addition, we are backed by leading life sciences investors, including Frazier Life Sciences, Bain Capital, Forbion, RA Capital and Viking Global. Prospective investors should not rely on the past investment decisions of our investors, as our investors may have different risk tolerances and may have received their shares in prior offerings at a significant discount to the market price. Cardiovascular Disease and Hyperlipidemia Market Overview and Unmet Medical Need According to the World Health Organization, CVD is a leading cause of death globally and was responsible for approximately 19 million deaths, or approximately 32% of all global deaths, in 2020. Hyperlipidemia, more commonly known as high cholesterol, has been observed to nearly double the risk of developing CVD compared to those with normal total cholesterol levels. D espite the availability of lipid lowering therapies, CVD events are on the rise. This increase despite aggressive secondary prevention efforts speaks to the concept known as “residual cardiovascular risk,” defined as the risk of CVD events that persists despite treatment for, or achievement of targets for risk factors such as LDL-C. LDL-C is the primary cause of ASCVD, and the target of many interventions aimed at reducing risk of cardiovascular events. An LDL-centric approach to risk reduction, namely with lipid lowering therapies, including statins, serves as the foundation for reducing residual cardiovascular risk. Data from a number of cardiovascular outcomes trials suggests that LDL-C is one of the most modifiable risk factors of ASCVD. Currently available strategies for LDL-C-lowering include lifestyle interventions and drug therapies including oral statins, ezetimibe, bempedoic acid, and injectable PCSK9 inhibitor therapies. Lowering LDL-C has been observed to reduce morbidity and mortality in those with, or at risk of, CVD. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration (“CTT”) showed that lowering of LDL cholesterol by about 40 mg/dL with standard statin regimens safely reduced the 5-year incidence of major coronary events, revascularizations, and ischemic strokes by 22% . They also noted that a more pronounced absolute 8 reduction of LDL-C may lead to substantially greater relative reduction in cardiovascular events. Furthermore, as seen in the Heart Protection Study and the CTT collaboration, benefit was seen in each tertile of baseline LDL-C. Similar relationships have also been documented in non-statin CVOTs for ezetimibe, two PCSK9 inhibitors, evolocumab and alirocumab, and the CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib. These trials have provided evidence that absolute LDL-C reduction and duration of therapy form a consistent model for predicting improved outcomes in patients with established ASCVD. Despite the availability of current lipid lowering therapies, many patients are unable to achieve their risk-based LDL-C goals. In the United States, we estimate that approximately 30 million patients remain above their risk-based LDL-C goal despite treatment with lipid lowering therapy, including approximately 13 million with ASCVD. Additionally, we estimate that approximately 10 million patients diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia are receiving no therapy at all. Patients unable to achieve treatment goals with maximally tolerated statin therapy require additional lipid-lowering therapy. Cholesterol absorption inhibitors, ezetimibe, bempedoic acid or PCSK9 inhibitors are all prescribed as alternatives or adjuncts to statins. However, there are several limitations with these lines of therapy, such as limited efficacy, route of administration, market access hurdles and side effects. Because PCSK9 inhibitors are injectable, they pose a less attractive option for patients who broadly prefer oral medications, and they have not received the expected utilization by clinicians or patients. The two non-statin oral LDL-C-lowering therapies, ezetimibe and bempedoic acid, often do not provide the efficacy required for many patients, including high-risk ASCVD patients, that have more aggressive LDL-C goals. Therefore, there remains a significant unmet medical need for therapies to reduce LDL-C levels and residual cardiovascular risk in a convenient dosage form, and with a more favorable tolerability and safety profile to encourage long-term use and patient compliance We believe that a potent, convenient, safe and well-tolerated low-dose oral medication to reduce LDL-C could fulfill this unmet need. Our Solution: Enhanced LDL-C Lowering Through CETP Inhibition with Obicetrapib We believe that CETP inhibition with obicetrapib has the potential, if approved, to provide patients and physicians with a new oral therapy option to robustly reduce LDL-C. Obicetrapib is designed to be a next-generation, oral, low-dose CETP inhibitor with powerful LDL-C lowering capability. We are developing obicetrapib as both a monotherapy and a fixed-dose combination therapy with ezetimibe and have structured our obicetrapib program to overcome the safety, potency, trial design and commercial viability limitations of prior CETP inhibitors. Further, we believe that obicetrapib’s oral delivery, demonstrated activity in low doses, chemical properties and potential tolerability make it well-suited for combination approaches. Obicetrapib has intrinsic properties, such as ionizable features and substantially reduced lipophilicity, that we believe give it more favorable properties as a drug candidate compared to prior CETP inhibitors. We have observed a favorable tolerability profile for obicetrapib in an aggregate of over 800 patients with dyslipidemia from Phase 1 through Phase 2 clinical trials. We are conducting two Phase 3 pivotal trials, BROADWAY and BROOKLYN, to evaluate obicetrapib as a monotherapy used as an adjunct to maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-C lowering in patients with ASCVD and/or HeFH. We completed enrollment for BROADWAY in July 2023 and for BROOKLYN in April 2023. Over 2,500 patients have been randomized in the BROADWAY trial and over 350 patients have been 9 randomized in the BROOKLYN trial. We currently expect to report top-line data from BROOKLYN in the third quarter of 2024 and from BROADWAY in the fourth quarter of 2024. In March 2022, we commenced our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT, which is designed to assess the potential of obicetrapib to reduce occurrences of MACE, including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and non-elective coronary revascularization. We currently expect to complete enrollment in PREVAIL in the first quarter of 2024 and report topline data in 2026. We also conducted a Phase 2b dose-finding trial of obicetrapib as an adjunct to stable statin therapy in patients with dyslipidemia in Japan and announced topline results on June 5, 2023. We also continue investigating obicetrapib as a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe following the announcement of data from our Phase 2 ROSE2 trial. In parallel with the ROSE2 trial, we formulated two prototype fixed dose combination tablets of obicetrapib and ezetimibe. These formulations were compared to the co-administration of obicetrapib and ezetimibe in a pilot bioequivalence trial, which was completed in the first half of 2023. Based on the results of this pilot bioequivalence trial and the data and learnings from our ROSE2 trial, we have selected a formulation for a fixed-dose combination tablet of obicetrapib and ezetimibe and we anticipate initiating TANDEM, a Phase 3 pivotal trial, to evaluate 10 mg obicetrapib and 10 mg ezetimibe as a fixed-dose combination used as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-C lowering in patients with HeFH, ASCVD or ASCVD risk equivalents, in the first quarter of 2024. We believe that obicetrapib has the potential to significantly impact the existing treatment paradigm for patients with ASCVD and/or HeFH and elevated levels of LDL-C, and that the key differentiating attributes of our product candidate include the following: • Enhanced LDL-C reduction capability. We believe that obicetrapib’s physical, pharmacokinetic and biopharmaceutical properties position it to potentially demonstrate more favorable potency and enhanced LDL-C lowering capability than previous CETP inhibitors. In previously conducted clinical trials in patients with moderately high LDL-C levels with or without prior statin therapy, obicetrapib has been observed to lower LDL-C both as a monotherapy and a combination therapy with ezetimibe (an approved LDL-C-lowering medication). In our Phase 2b ROSE clinical trial, we observed a median LDL-C reduction capability of 51% in patients treated with 10 mg obicetrapib on top of high-intensity statins. In our Phase 2 ROSE2 clinical trial, we observed a median LDL-C reduction of 63.4% in patients treated with a combination of 10 mg obicetrapib and 10 mg of ezetimibe as an adjunct to high-intensity statins. • Promising tolerability profile. Patients are often non-compliant with existing cholesterol-lowering therapies, particularly statin therapy, due to their side effect profiles, which could result in suboptimal treatment outcomes and disease progression. In five of our Phase 2 clinical trials of obicetrapib, we observed statistically significant LDL-lowering activity combined with a similar incidence of generally moderate side effects compared to placebo and no drug-related, treatment-emergent serious AEs. In addition, CETP inhibitors previously under development were observed to produce anti-diabetic benefits in Phase 3 CVOTs, that, if seen in obicetrapib, could make it a potentially attractive adjunct for patients who are concerned about the risks of diabetes associated with statin therapy. • Convenience. We believe that obicetrapib’s simple once-daily, low-dose oral formulation can improve patient adherence, thereby amplifying its cholesterol-lowering impact. Additionally, unlike injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, obicetrapib, an oral small molecule, is better suited for combination with other oral treatments as oral fixed-dose combination products. • Patient access. In addition, payor confidence is essential to ensuring access for patients. Based on the LDL-lowering activity of obicetrapib and oral route of administration, we believe payors will perceive the LDL-C lowering capability of obicetrapib to be on par with PCSK9 inhibitors, which are administered by injection, and to exceed the LDL-lowering capabilities of other existing oral therapies and will ultimately prefer obicetrapib to existing treatment alternatives. • Effect on other predictors of disease risk. Like other types of LDL-C lowering therapies, i.e. statins and PCSK9 inhibitors, CETP inhibition enhances the removal of ApoB, a protein found in lipoprotein particles that contributes to atherosclerosis. However, unlike statins, based on observations from our Phase 2 clinical trials, obicetrapib also decreases the presence of lipoprotein(a) (“Lp(a)”), an important biomarker for CVD risk reduction. Lowering LDL-C Through CETP Inhibition Hyperlipidemia, and in particular hypercholesterolemia, or high cholesterol, is a major risk factor for atherosclerosis, which involves the build-up of fatty material within the inner walls of the arteries. This is because LDL-C (“a package” of cholesterol contained within a particle that contains ApoB) has the tendency to penetrate the inner lining of the arterial wall becoming trapped leading to a build-up of fatty material, which in turn elicits a pro-inflammatory response and causes the arterial walls to stiffen. Left untreated, these deposits of fatty material can result in ulceration of the vessel wall which causes acute clotting of the blood and a heart attack or a stroke. Another lipoprotein particle, Lp(a), functions in the circulation as a “sink” for oxidized phospholipids and is also prone, like ApoB, to becoming trapped in the arterial wall, attached to proteoglycans of the extracellular matrix. Subsequently, these particles build up and contribute to plaque formation and inflammation. Because of the tendency of LDL-C to build up in the arteries, LDL-C is often referred to as “bad cholesterol” and is one of the most prominent risk factors for the development of CVD. 10 LDL-C and ApoB levels are mainly regulated by the liver through a surface protein known as the LDL receptor. Most current LDL-C lowering therapies work, at least in part, by increasing the number of LDL receptors, and thereby increasing the clearance of LDL particles from the blood. Statin therapy is the current standard of care for patients with ASCVD or HeFH and elevated levels of LDL-C. Statin therapy reduces cholesterol in the blood by blocking a key enzyme, HMG-CoA-Reductase, necessary for the synthesis of cholesterol, which reduces the amount of cholesterol made by the liver; in addition, statins upregulate the LDL receptor, resulting in lower blood cholesterol. PCSK9 inhibitors, another LDL-C-lowering treatment, also increase the presence of LDL receptors by inhibiting PCSK9, an enzyme involved in the degradation of LDL receptors. Two other LDL-C lowering therapies, ezetimibe and Nexletol/Nexlizet, also work by upregulating LDL receptors. CETP is a plasma glycoprotein produced in the liver that circulates in the blood primarily bound to a high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (“HDL-C” or “HDL”) particle. CETP can also attach to an LDL particle and form a bridge to transfer cholesterol from HDL to LDL, as shown in the figure below. Consequently, CETP inhibitors, including obicetrapib, reduce the cholesterol concentration of LDL particles and increase the cholesterol concentration of HDL particles. This results in a decrease of the cholesterol pool in the liver as a result of the augmented excretion of cholesterol via the liver into the bile and ultimately the feces. The liver also produces more LDL receptors thereby resulting in more LDL-C particles and ApoB being cleared from the bloodstream. In animal models, CETP inhibition has been shown to block the transfer of cholesterol from HDL particles to LDL particles and to upregulate LDL receptors, thereby reducing the development of atherosclerosis and risk of ASCVD. Although it was previously believed that the HDL-raising effects of CETP inhibition would be its primary contributor to decreased CVD risk, LDL-reduction is now known to be the most significant factor for lowering CVD risk. In a population with CETP loss of function genotypes, a 16% reduction in CVD risk was observed for every 10 mg/dL decrease in LDL-C levels. The relationship between genomic loss of CETP function and lower LDL-C levels and CVD risk is consistent with other mechanisms of genomic LDL-C reduction such as HMG-CoA reductase (statins), NPC1L1 (ezetimibe), ATP-citrate lyase (Nexletol/Nexlizet) and PCSK9 (PCSK9 inhibitors). Multiple genetic studies provide support that specific mutations associated with lifelong lower LDL-C levels reduce the risk of CVD. CETP inhibition also increases the removal of ApoB. Apolipoproteins are proteins that are involved in packaging different types of large lipid-particle complexes that store cholesterol in the body. As shown in the figure below, the primary effect of CETP inhibition is a reduced rate of transfer of cholesteryl esters from HDL into triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, including LDL, which in turn leads to an increased concentration of cholesteryl esters in HDL particles and the formation of larger HDL particles. Consequently, we have observed an increase in the excretion of cholesterol via the liver into digestive tract and an upregulation of LDL receptors on the liver, resulting in an enhanced clearances of LDL or ApoB-containing lipoproteins from the body. In addition, there is evidence that CETP inhibition also promotes cholesterol excretion into the intestines directly contributing to the reduced cholesterol levels in the liver thus maintaining upregulation of LDL receptors. Small dense LDL particles (“sdLDL-P”) are also believed to be an important predictor of CVD risk, with lower levels of sdLDL-P having been observed to correlate closely to lower cardiovascular risk. The measurement of using LDL particle (“LDL-P”) size and particles numbers is an alternative approach to determining CVD risk assessment and research suggest that LDL-P size, density and numbers may be more closely correlated to CVD risk than LDL-C. Increased levels of LDL-P suggest an increased presence of sdLDL-P which may have a greater potential to develop into arterial plaque due to their increased time in circulation compared to larger LDL-P and greater ability to become 11 trapped in the arterial wall. Research has suggested that treatments lowering LDL-C alone may trigger a disconnect between LDL-C and LDL-P, which, given the observed strong connection between LDL-P and CVD risk, suggests there is a need for a drug which lowers both. Limitations of Current Non-Statin Therapies Increased attention by physicians to aggressive LDL-C lowering for high-risk CVD patients has led to the increased use of non-statin therapies with LDL-C lowering capabilities, including ezetimibe, Nexletol/Nexlizet and PCSK9 inhibitors, either on their own or in conjunction with statins. However, the needs of patients at very high risk to experience a future cardiovascular event with elevated levels of LDL-C despite being treated with maximally tolerated statin therapy remain largely unaddressed by current non-statin treatment options, which have only modest efficacy or are inconveniently administered through an injection. In a cross-sectional study of over 20 thousand patients on lipid-lowering medication, current treatments including statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors or a combination of the foregoing resulted in fewer than 3% of patients reaching recommended cholesterol goals of lower than 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). • Ezetimibe. The non-statin cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe functions by preventing the absorption of cholesterol in the intestines by blocking the NPC1L1 protein. Although these drugs are administered at a low dose, which contributes to their safety and tolerability, and are generic and broadly available, they have been shown to only moderately reduce LDL-C. Ezetimibe as monotherapy or when given in combination with statin therapy has been observed to reduce LDL-C by approximately 13% to 20%. Despite its modest efficacy, ezetimibe is the most prescribed non-statin lipid lowering therapy with approximately 6% market share. • Nexletol/Nexlizet. The other currently available oral non-statin therapy, Nexletol/Nexlizet, which inhibits the enzyme ATP citrate lyase, an enzyme involved in cholesterol synthesis, shows only relatively modest improvement in lowering LDL-C. Along with its relatively modest efficacy, Nexletol/Nexlizet’s label contains safety warnings that include tendon rupture and gout. Given that Nexletol/Nexlizet’s efficacy profile is comparable to generic ezetimibe, payors are reluctant to cover it, thus limiting its access and slowing uptake. • PCSK9 Inhibitors. The PCSK9 inhibitors on the market are injectable monoclonal antibodies and small interfering RNA that have been observed to reduce LDL-C levels by approximately 50% compared to baseline. While PCSK9 inhibitors have demonstrated their effectiveness at reducing LDL-C when used alone and as an adjunct to statin therapy, we believe their injectable route of administration makes them inconvenient for patients, and their access is further limited by their associated high cost and low rates of prescription approval by payors. It is estimated that over 75% of ASCVD and HeFH outpatients prefer oral drugs to injectable therapies. Limitations of Prior Attempts to Develop CETP Inhibitors As described above, CETP inhibitors, including obicetrapib, are designed to work by blocking the transfer of cholesteryl esters from HDL to LDL particles, thereby reducing LDL-C levels in the body. We believe that obicetrapib can improve upon existing therapies by providing a combination of potent LDL-C lowering activity favorable tolerability and the ability to be administered orally. Other CETP inhibitors have reached varying stages of clinical development, but none have been approved or otherwise able to generate a potent, safe and well-tolerated low-dose oral option. We believe that the prior CETP inhibitor programs did not select optimal compounds because they focused on exploring the prominent increase in HDL-C rather than the potential for lowering LDL-C. Given the focus on HDL-C raising, we believe their clinical trial designs were suboptimal. Nevertheless, anacetrapib, the latest of the prior CETP inhibitors, provided clinical support for the proposition that the absolute reduction in LDL-C over time by CETP inhibition confers a predictable benefit in the prevalence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The focus on HDL-C raising by developers of prior CETP inhibitors likely resulted in the selection of chemical compounds that were not optimized for LDL-C lowering, which we believe in turn resulted in only modest reductions to CVD risk. In addition, one CETP inhibitor, torcetrapib, experienced off-target toxicity resulting in increased blood pressure and elevated aldosterone concentration in Phase 2 clinical trials. While another CETP inhibitor, dalcetrapib, did not experience the off-target toxicity as observed with torcetrapib, the drug had no LDL-C lowering activity and therefore no effect on reducing major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Given the emphasis on the HDL-C raising capabilities of the prior CETP inhibitors in development, the associated CETP inhibitor programs also used CVOTs designed to evaluate patients with controlled rather than elevated LDL-C levels. Therefore, we believe these study designs minimized the potential to observe relative reductions in CVD risk. In addition, we believe the evacetrapib CVOT was too short (a median duration of only two years) and most likely the sample size too low for the full magnitude of MACE benefits to be observed based on the modest reduction in LDL-C achieved. Similar CVOTs with other agents that lowered LDL-C by a similar magnitude required at least three years to demonstrate a MACE benefit, including the CVOTs of the CETP inhibitor anacetrapib. In the Phase 3 REVEAL CVOT investigating the efficacy of anacetrapib in approximately 30,000 patients with ASCVD receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy, there was an observed correlation between MACE benefits for anacetrapib and the magnitude of the LDL-C reduction, suggesting that CETP inhibitors work according to the same principle as statin therapy in reducing MACE. The REVEAL trial began 12 enrollment in August 2011 and completed its long-term follow-up in April 2019. A median four-year follow-up of the REVEAL trial showed that CETP inhibition resulted in a nine percent reduction in MACE (first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization) compared to placebo. We believe the REVEAL results provide clinical support showing that the absolute reduction in LDL-C over time by CETP inhibition confers a predictable benefit in the prevalence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, as measured by MACE. However, due to a very low baseline level of LDL-C (61 mg/dl), the trial showed only a modest absolute LDL-C lowering of 11 mg/dl (17%). In addition, anacetrapib’s commercial viability was limited by its lipophilicity, which caused it to accumulate in fat tissue over time. We selected obicetrapib 10 mg for our phase 3 development program given its observed LDL-C-lowering activity and safety profile and designed our CVOT to avoid the shortcomings of prior CETP inhibitor programs and to ultimately fulfill the unmet need of ASCVD or HeFH patients with elevated LDL-C levels despite being treated with currently available optimal lipid lowering therapy. Obicetrapib has intrinsic properties, such as ionizable features and substantially reduced lipophilicity, that we believe give it more favorable physical, pharmacokinetic and biopharmaceutical properties as a drug candidate compared to other CETP inhibitors. Our Strategy Our goal is to develop and commercialize potentially transformative oral therapies for patients suffering from cardiometabolic diseases rooted in abnormal cholesterol metabolism for which existing therapies are unsuccessful or not well-tolerated. The core elements of our strategy to achieve our goal are the following: • Advance the clinical development of obicetrapib as a next-generation oral, low-dose, once-daily LDL-C lowering treatment as a monotherapy and a fixed dose combination therapy with ezetimibe . We are conducting three Phase 3 pivotal trials with obicetrapib as a monotherapy, two of which have completed enrollment: BROADWAY, which has randomized over 2,500 patients, and BROOKLYN, which has randomized over 350 patients, to evaluate obicetrapib as a monotherapy used as an adjunct to maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-C lowering for ASCVD and/or HeFH patients with elevated LDL-C levels despite being treated with currently available optimal lipid lowering therapy who are at very high risk to experience a future cardiovascular event. In March 2022, we also commenced our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT, which is designed to assess obicetrapib’s potential to reduce occurrences of MACE, including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and non-elective coronary revascularization. We expect to report data from our Phase 3 BROOKLYN trial in the third quarter of 2024 and our Phase 3 BROADWAY trial in the fourth quarter of 2024. We expect to report data from our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT in 2026. We also anticipate initiating our TANDEM Phase 3 trial using the obicetrapib 10 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg FDC tablet in the first half of 2024. The TANDEM study is a Phase 3 pivotal trial to evaluate 10 mg obicetrapib and 10 mg ezetimibe as a fixed-dose combination used as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-lowering in patients with HeFH and/or ASCVD. We anticipate enrolling approximately 400 patients in our TANDEM trial and releasing topline data in the first quarter of 2025. • Obtain marketing approval from regulatory agencies . We currently plan to seek approval of obicetrapib in the United States, the EU, Japan, China and the United Kingdom. We are executing multiple Phase 3 trials simultaneously, with clinical plans that incorporate feedback from the FDA, EMA, PMDA and NMPA. We have also completed a Phase 2 trial specifically in Japan and are including a significant number of patients in Japan to support approval in those markets on the same timelines as the U.S. and Europe. • Commercialize obicetrapib for the treatment of cardiometabolic disease . We are currently developing capabilities and infrastructure to commercialize obicetrapib in the United States, if approved. We are additionally focused on selecting optimal partners in targeted geographies at the right time in obicetrapib’s development and commercialization process. We have partnered with Menarini to exclusively commercialize obicetrapib 10 mg either as a sole active ingredient product or in a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe in the majority of European countries, if approved. Subject to receipt of marketing approval, our current plan is to pursue development and commercialization of obicetrapib in the United States ourselves, and to consider additional partners for jurisdictions outside of the United States and the EU, including in Japan and China. • Continue evaluating the role of obicetrapib for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease . Evidence observed in our preclinical studies suggests that cholesterol accumulation in the brain may be a precursor to Alzheimer’s disease. For example, rodents lack the CETP gene and are resistant to Alzheimer’s disease. In early preclinical studies, when the human CETP gene was knocked into a mouse, the cholesterol content of the mouse brain was observed to increase by 25%. When the CETP gene knock-in is combined with the knock-in gene for the amyloid precursor protein, hypothesized to be a driver of Alzheimer’s disease, the risk of developing a mouse analog of Alzheimer’s disease may greatly increase. In a preclinical study, we observed that CETP inhibition promoted cholesterol removal from the brain and improved cognition. We commenced a Phase 2a open-label and single-arm clinical trial in early 2022 in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease and the ApoE4 mutation to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib. A total of 13 patients were given 10 mg obicetrapib per day and followed for 24 weeks. In September 2023, we announced initial data from this trial. We observed reductions in the levels of 24-hydroxycholesterol and 27-hydroxycholesterol of 11% and 12%, respectively, in the CSF, compared to baseline. In addition, an increase of 8% compared to baseline in the Aβ42/40 13 ratio in patient’s plasma was observed and pTau181 levels were observed to be stable. Increases in 24-hydroxycholesterol and 27-hydroxycholesterol over time have been observed by others to lead to a rise in cognitive and related functional impairment. We believe reductions of these oxysterols in the CSF may indicate improved cholesterol metabolism in the brain and may lead to improved cognitive function. In addition, this trial assessed the Aβ42/40 ratio and plasma pTau181, also believed to be biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, with lower levels of Aβ42/40 and increased levels of pTau181 having been associated with a greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Overall, obicetrapib was observed to be well-tolerated. No serious AEs were reported, nor were any AEs considered to be related to the trial drug. We plan to evaluate these markers in our BROADWAY trial, taking advantage of the long term follow up of this study in a patient population of whom, approximately one-third of patients are APoE4 carriers. • Explore the potential of CETP inhibitors for use in other indications . We believe that CETP inhibition, by markedly increasing HDL-C and lowering LDL-C, may also have a role to play in other indications by potentially mitigating the risk of developing diseases such as diabetes, which led to an estimated 1,500,000 deaths globally in 2019, in addition to CVD and Alzheimer’s disease. Clinically demonstrated anti-diabetic benefits have been observed with CETP inhibition in Phase 3 CVOTs that, if seen in obicetrapib, would differentiate it from current treatment alternatives, especially statins. We are planning preclinical studies examining the potential of obicetrapib for patients suffering from diabetes and have included the onset of diabetes as an endpoint in our CVOT. Clinical Development Plan We are conducting two Phase 3 pivotal trials – our BROADWAY and BROOKLYN trials – designed to measure obicetrapib’s ability to reduce LDL-C as a monotherapy administered as an adjunct to maximally tolerated lipid-modifying therapy. Following our end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the fourth quarter of 2021, we also commenced our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT for obicetrapib as a monotherapy administered as an adjunct to maximally tolerated lipid-modifying therapy in early 2022. In our Phase 2 ROSE2 trial, we evaluated the effect of a fixed dose combination of obicetrapib 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg on top of high-intensity statin therapy on reduction in LDL-C. In parallel with the ROSE2 trial, we formulated two prototype fixed dose combination tablets of obicetrapib and ezetimibe. These formulations were compared to the co-administration of obicetrapib and ezetimibe in a pilot bioequivalence trial, which was completed in the first half of 2023. Based on the results of this pilot bioequivalence trial and the data and learnings from our ROSE2 trial, we have selected a formulation for a fixed-dose combination tablet of obicetrapib and ezetimibe and we anticipate initiating TANDEM, a Phase 3 pivotal trial, to evaluate 10 mg obicetrapib and 10 mg ezetimibe as a fixed-dose combination used as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-lowering in patients with HeFH, ASCVD or ASCVD risk equivalents, in the first quarter of 2024 and releasing topline data in the first quarter of 2025. On June 5, 2023, we reported topline results from our Phase 2b dose-finding trial of obicetrapib as an adjunct to stable statin therapy in patients with dyslipidemia in Japan. Based on the lipid-modifying effects of CETP inhibition we have observed in our clinical trials for obicetrapib to date, we have conducted preclinical assessments of obicetrapib to test its potential for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Following a Type B meeting in June 2021, the FDA confirmed that our preclinical data are sufficient to support a proposed clinical trial of obicetrapib for this indication, and we commenced a Phase 2a clinical trial in early 2022 in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib. We announced initial data from this trial in September 2023. We have set forth below our current obicetrapib clinical development pipeline. 14 *Other than as noted, the pipeline represents trials that are currently ongoing. Projections are subject to inherent limitations. Actual results may differ from expectations. The timing of regulatory submissions is subject to additional discussions with regulators. Obicetrapib for Cardiovascular Disease There is broad scientific consensus that elevation in LDL-C is a primary causal factor for ASCVD, and CVD outcomes in high-risk populations improve as the level of LDL-C achieved on therapy decreases. A study published in the Journal of the American Medicine in 2017 found that genetic variants related to lower LDL-C levels were significantly associated with a lower risk of CVD. Specifically, the study concluded that the quantum of reduced genetic risk for CVD associated with CETP mutations was almost identical to the genetic risk of CVD observed in patients with genetically reduced levels of the proteins targeted by statins, PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe. We believe the consistency of benefit across genotypes observed in all target genes is predictive of the clinical efficacy of CETP-induced LDL-C lowering on CVD. The direct correlation between LDL-C reduction and decrease in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events has been documented for both statin, as well as non-statin, therapies in CVOTs for ezetimibe, the PCSK9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab, and for the CETP inhibitor anacetrapib. Most notably, a median four-year follow-up of the REVEAL Phase 3 trial of anacetrapib showed that CETP inhibition resulted in a nine percent reduction in MACE (first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization) compared to placebo. However, due to a very low baseline level of LDL-C (61 mg/dl), the trial showed only a modest absolute LDL-C lowering of 11 mg/dl (17%). After approximately six and a half years of total follow-up, the REVEAL clinical trial showed additional MACE reduction of 20%. The table below shows the reduction in MACE and each component of MACE in the in-trial and post-trial periods. We believe the REVEAL results provide clinical support for the hypothesis that the absolute reduction in LDL-C over time by CETP inhibition confers a predictable benefit in the prevalence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, as measured by MACE. Specifically, the decrease in MACE observed in the REVEAL trial of anacetrapib is consistent with the findings of the CTT Collaboration, illustrated in the 15 graphic below. The CTT collaboration conducted a meta-analysis of 26 statin clinical trials and showed that there is a consistent, linear decrease in MACE for every absolute unit of non-HDL (which is primarily composed of LDL-C) cholesterol reduction. The MACE reduction observed in REVEAL falls on the meta-regression line – specifically, the CTT metaregression line predicts that an absolute reduction of non-HDL of 17 mg/dl, as seen in REVEAL, would correspond to the 11% reduction in coronary death and myocardial infarction observed in REVEAL. *The graphic above presents a linear prediction of MACE benefit, as discussed above. Actual results may differ materially. With these learnings in mind, we are executing a phase 3 clinical development plan for obicetrapib focused on patients with elevated baseline LDL-C and that is designed to support a broad CVD label, if successful. To date, we have completed seven Phase 1 trials and five Phase 2 trials of obicetrapib. We are currently conducting two Phase 3 lipid trials as well as a Phase 3 CVOT. We anticipate initiating our TANDEM Phase 3 trial of obicetrapib 10 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg FDC in the first half of 2024. In TANDEM, we plan to enroll patients with HeFH, ASCVD or ASCVD risk equivalents to evaluate 10 mg obicetrapib and 10 mg ezetimibe as a fixed-dose combination used as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-lowering compared to placebo, ezetimibe and obicetrapib monotherapy. Planned and Ongoing Clinical Trials for Cardiovascular Disease Phase 3 TANDEM Fixed Dose Combination Trial We anticipate initiating TANDEM, a Phase 3 pivotal trial, to evaluate 10 mg obicetrapib and 10 mg ezetimibe as a fixed-dose combination used as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-lowering in patients with HeFH, ASCVD or ASCVD risk equivalents in the first quarter of 2024. We anticipate enrolling approximately 400 patients in the United States who have a baseline LDL-C of ≥ 70 mg/dL. Following a 14-day screening period, patients will be randomized 1:1:1:1 to obicetrapib 10 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg FDC, obicetrapib 10 mg monotherapy, ezetimibe 10 mg monotherapy or placebo for an 84-day treatment period. TANDEM’s primary endpoints include percent change from baseline in LDL-C of obicetrapib 10 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg FDC compared to placebo, ezetimibe 10 mg monotherapy and obicetrapib 10 mg monotherapy on day 84. Secondary endpoints include percent changes from baseline of obicetrapib 10 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg FDC compared to placebo, ezetimibe 10 mg monotherapy and obicetrapib 10 mg monotherapy on day 84 in ApoB and non-HDL-C. We also expect to evaluate the safety and tolerability profile of the fixed dose combination. Phase 3 BROADWAY and BROOKLYN Lipid Trials We are conducting two Phase 3 pivotal trials designed to measure obicetrapib’s LDL-C lowering capability and plan to enroll patients across both trials who require additional LDL-lowering on top of their maximum tolerated lipid-modifying therapies. BROADWAY, which completed enrollment in July 2023, randomized approximately 2,500 patients in the United States, Europe and Asia with HeFH (individuals genetically predisposed to very high cholesterol) or established ASCVD, and who have baseline LDL-C of at least 55 mg/dL, and an additional risk enhancer in participants with an LDL-C level below 100 mg/dL (including other abnormal biometrics, a recent myocardial infarction or Type 2 diabetes). BROOKLYN, which completed enrollment in April 2023, enrolled HeFH patients in the United States, Canada, Europe and 16 Africa who have baseline LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL. Obicetrapib will be administered in a once-daily 10 mg dose as an adjunct to diet (for regulatory purposes in the EU) and maximally tolerated lipid-modifying therapy, for a 52-week treatment period. Such lipid-modifying therapies include statins or, for statin-intolerant patients, ezetimibe, Nexletol/Nexlizet, PCSK9 inhibitors, or fibrates (a class of drugs which increase HDL-C without significantly reducing LDL-C). The primary endpoint of both trials is percent change from baseline in LDL-C of obicetrapib 10 mg compared to placebo after 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints will also include percent changes from baseline of obicetrapib 10 mg compared to placebo after 12 weeks in Lp(a), ApoB, HDL-C, non-HDL-C (representing total cholesterol minus HDL-C), LDL-C from baseline to placebo after 180 days and 52 weeks, and, for BROADWAY, total cholesterol and triglycerides and MACE from baseline to 30 days after the last dose. We also expect to evaluate the safety and tolerability profile of obicetrapib in a broadly representative population of adult males and females of all ages, including elderly and very elderly participants, assessed by AEs, vital signs, clinical laboratory values and electrocardiogram (“ECG”) measurements as well as to evaluate the effects of obicetrapib on blood pressure. Phase 3 PREVAIL Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial We have also initiated our PREVAIL trial (TA-8995-304), our Phase 3 CVOT, to evaluate the effects of 10 mg obicetrapib in participants with ASCVD on MACE (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke and non-elective coronary revascularization). We expect to enroll at least 9,000 participants at sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia with established ASCVD and an LDL-C level of at least 55 mg/dL, and an additional risk enhancer in participants with an LDL-C level below 100 mg/dL, whose LDL-C levels therefore are not adequately controlled despite maximally tolerated lipid-modifying therapies. The planned median trial follow-up is expected to be approximately 42 months, and the treatment period will continue until the last participant has been followed for a minimum of 2.5 years after the last patient has been randomized or until the target number of 959 primary endpoint events (i.e., cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or non-elective coronary revascularization) have occurred, whichever is later. We have designed our PREVAIL trial based on insights gained from analyzing failures of prior CVOTs for other CETP inhibitors. Our trial design targets patients above their LDL-C risk-based goal, despite treatment with maximally tolerated lipid modifying therapies, which we believe creates potential for greater observed absolute LDL-C reduction, particularly given the observed median LDL-lowering activity of 51% in our Phase 2b ROSE clinical trial. We are focused on patients with elevated LDL-C levels and who have at least one other risk enhancer (including recent myocardial infarction, Type 2 diabetes, high triglyceride levels or low HDL-C), compared to prior CVOTs for CETP inhibitors that enrolled patients with low baseline LDL-C. We are planning for longer duration of follow-up to maximize opportunities to observe MACE reduction, with all patients to be followed for a minimum of 2.5 years. We believe that the inclusion of a patient population with established ASCVD who are at very high risk to experience a future cardiovascular event given their elevated LDL-C levels despite being treated with maximum lipid lowering therapy and who have other additional risk enhancers increases the likelihood that the trial will accrue sufficient primary endpoint events over time and potentially result in a strong relative risk reduction in the treatment arm. Completed Phase 2 Clinical Trials We have completed five Phase 2 trials of obicetrapib for the treatment of cardiometabolic disease. In our Phase 2 trials obicetrapib was observed to robustly lower LDL-C and increase HDL-C from baseline across various treatment settings. Obicetrapib was also observed to be well-tolerated compared to placebo, in both the 5 mg and 10 mg doses and as a combination therapy with ezetimibe. The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) were mild or moderate in severity and there were no drug-related, treatment-emergent serious AEs. The graphs below summarize the results of our Phase 1 MAD and Phase 2 trials, with 10 mg of obicetrapib. In our Phase 2b ROSE trial, we observed that obicetrapib has robust LDL-C lowering capability as an adjunct to high-intensity statins at both 5 mg and 10 mg dosages. Based on our ROSE trial, we are using a 10 mg dosage for our Phase 3 trials. In our Phase 2a TULIP trial, we observed that a daily dose of up to 10 mg of obicetrapib alone significantly reduced LDL-C and increased HDL-C. Based on observations from our Phase 2b OCEAN trial, we believe that obicetrapib is at least additive for LDL lowering as a combination therapy with ezetimibe. 17 The table below summarizes the trial designs of the first three Phase 2 trials we have completed. Trial Design Patients Obicetrapib Formulation TULIP (TA-8995-03) Randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the percent changes in LDL-C and HDL-C levels 364 patients with mild dyslipidemia not on lipid-altering therapy at screening 1, 2.5, 5 or 10 mg alone and as a combination therapy with statins ROSE (TA-8995-201) Randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate LDL-C reduction 114 patients with mild dyslipidemia already receiving high-intensity statin therapy 5 mg or 10 mg OCEAN (TA-8995-303) Randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate LDL-C reduction 112 patients with mild dyslipidemia 5 mg alone and as a combination therapy with 10 mg ezetimibe A Phase 2a TULIP trial of obicetrapib, which was completed in 2014, was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial among 364 patients with mild dyslipidemia and not on lipid-altering therapy at screening and involved once-daily oral dosing of obicetrapib up to 10 mg or a placebo alone and as a combination therapy with statins. The primary endpoints were the percent changes in LDL-C and HDL-C levels from baseline to week 12 of the trial, which were met for both doses. The 5 mg dose of obicetrapib resulted in a mean reduction of LDL-C by 45% and increased HDL-C by 161%, compared to placebo. In patients treated with 10 mg obicetrapib plus statin therapy (20 mg atorvastatin or 10 mg rosuvastatin), LDL-C levels were approximately 50% lower and HDL-C levels were approximately 140% higher, respectively, than those observed in patients receiving statin therapy alone. Key secondary endpoints included percent changes in ApoB and apolipoprotein A1 (“ApoA1”). In patients treated with 5 mg obicetrapib, ApoB was reduced by 33.8%, while ApoA1 levels increased by 58.3%. A daily dose of 10 mg obicetrapib on top of statin therapy resulted in an ApoB reduction of 30% and an ApoA1 increase of 54.1% than those observed in patients receiving statin therapy alone. Other secondary endpoints included percent change in apolipoprotein E (“ApoE”), nascent HDL levels and ABCA-1 efflux. A summary of certain of these results follows: 18 A total of 284 (78.2%) patients experienced at least one TEAE, of which 95 (26.2%) experienced a suspected trial drug-related TEAE. For all treatment groups, the most common TEAEs were the common cold and headache (22.9% and 13.2%, respectively). Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity with only 13 (3.6%) patients experiencing a severe TEAE, two of which were suspected to be related to the trial drug (one subject in the placebo group and one subject in the atorvastatin 20 mg and obicetrapib 10 mg combination). Prevalence, incidence and severity of TEAEs were similar across all treatment groups. There were eight patients with a TESAE, none of which were trial drug related, and no deaths occurred during the trial. Our Phase 2b ROSE trial, which was completed in August 2021, was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial among 120 patients with mild dyslipidemia who were already receiving high-intensity statin therapy. The trial involved a once-daily oral dose of obicetrapib at either 5 mg or 10 mg dose level for eight weeks. The primary endpoint of this clinical trial was LDL-C reduction from baseline and was met for both doses. Obicetrapib had a rapid effect, with LDL-C levels dropping dramatically in the first four weeks of the trial and remaining relatively steady for the remaining four weeks of the trial. At the 5 mg dose level, approximately 20% of patients experienced a decrease in median LDL-C levels of over 60%; at the 10 mg dose level, that percentage nearly doubled. A summary of these statistically significant results is as follows: Median (min, max) LDL-C levels (mg/dL) at baseline and EoT Time Placebo Obicetrapib 5mg Obicetrapib 10mg Baseline Median 90.0 95.0 88.0 (63, 204) (54, 236) (39, 207) N=40 N=39 N=40 EoT Median 86.0 53.0 49.5 (43, 137) (13, 126) (23, 83) N=39 N=39 N=40 % Change from Baseline (median) -6.5 -41.45 -50.75 (-53.9, 31.6) N=39 (-71.2, 62.3) N=38* (-76.9, 15.6) N=40 % Change from Baseline LS mean (95% Cl) P-value -4.76 (-11.74, 2.22) -37.98 (-44.80, -31.17) -44.15 (-50.95, -37.35) 0.1814 <0.0001 <0.0001 We also observed median percent reductions in ApoB of 24.4% and 29.8%; decreases in non-HDL-C of 38.9% and 44.4%; increases in HDL-C of 135.4% and 165.0%; and decreases in Lp(a) of 33.8% and 56.5%, in each case at the 5 mg and 10 mg doses, respectively. These statistically significant results are summarized as follows: 19 Percent Change from Baseline to 8 Weeks in Lipid Biomarkers Placebo (N=40) 5 mg (N=40) 10 mg (N=40) ApoB Baseline: n Mean (SD) Median (min, max) Percent Change: Mean (SD) Median (min, max) LS Mean (SE) 1 p-value 40 40 40 90.8 (18.2) 91.2 (22.6) 87.5 (22.0) 87.0 (66, 136) 88.0 (53, 171) 82.0 (49, 161) -4.67 (17.7) -22.62 (21.9) -27.19 (15.3) -2.60 (-50.0, 28.4) -24.40 (-58.5, 47.4) -29.75 (-58.4, 13.0) -4.13 (2.6) -22.40 (2.6) -28.12 (2.6) <0.0001 <0.0001 Non-HDL-C Baseline: n Mean (SD) Median (min, max) Percent Change: Mean (SD) Median (min, max) LS Mean (SE) 1 p-value 40 40 40 125.4 (32.7) 125.9 (36.4) 121.4 (37.3) 115.0 (87, 227) 118.5 (69, 276) 113.0 (53, 242) -4.22 (20.4) -34.28 (25.6) -39.25 (17.6) -3.50 (-50.3, 48.4) -38.90 (-65.6, 66.3) -44.40 (-70.2, 22.5) -3.83 (3.2) -34.37 (3.2) -39.86 (3.2) <0.0001 <0.0001 Placebo (N=40) 5 mg (N=40) 10 mg (N=40) HDL-C Baseline: n Mean (SD) Median (min, max) Percent Change: Mean (SD) Median (min, max) LS Mean (SE) 1 p-value 40 40 40 48.6 (15.7) 48.5 (13.7) 49.9 (18.7) 44.5 (19, 99) 46.5 (24, 79) 44.0 (25, 138) -6.62 (12.4) 123.92 (57.7) 156.41 (52.2) -4.90 (-30.3, 28.6) 135.40 (-26.4, 212.9) 164.95 (55.1, 286.3) -6.98 (6.6) 122.29 (6.6) 157.35 (6.5) <0.0001 <0.0001 Lp(a) Baseline: n Mean (SD) Median (min, max) Percent Change: Mean (SD) Median (min, max) LS Mean (SE) 1 p-value 40 40 40 108.2 (123.3) 117.1 (115.3) 85.8 (106.4) 45.3 (2.9, 410) 89.4 (2.8, 354) 29.9 (2.8, 435) 5.4 (21.2) -30.0 (31.9) -43.2 (30.1) 4.00 (-29.6, 45.5) -33.8 (-84.6, 93.8) -56.5 (-85.7, 18.3) 5.06 (4.4) -30.9 (4.4) -42.0 (4.3) <0.0001 <0.0001 1 Least squares (LS) means and p-values (two-sided) are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit as factors and baseline LDL-C as a covariate. p-values from comparison to placebo. For percent change values, n=39 for placebo and obicetrapib 5 mg groups for all, except n=38 for LDL-C and Lp(a) for obicetrapib 5 mg. Overall, obicetrapib as an adjunct to high-intensity statin therapy at both doses was observed to be well-tolerated compared to placebo. TEAEs were reported by 15 (37.5%) subjects in the 5 mg group and 8 (20.0%) subjects in the 10 mg group, compared with 19 (47.5%) subjects in the placebo group. For all treatment groups, the most common TEAEs were fatigue (4.2%), arthralgia (2.5%), nausea (2.5%) and headache (2.5%). All other TEAEs were experienced by only one or no subjects in each treatment group. TEAEs that were considered by the investigator to be related to trial treatment were reported by three subjects (two subjects in the 5 mg group and one subject in the 10 mg group), compared with four subjects in the placebo group. There were no TEAEs leading to death. One subject in the placebo group had a TEAE leading to discontinuation. The majority of TEAEs were mild and moderate in severity; one subject in the placebo group had a severe TEAE. There were two serious TEAEs, both of which occurred in the placebo group. Based on our ROSE trial and the enhanced LDL-C reduction capability of a 10 mg dose compared with 5 mg and the safety profile we observed, we selected a 10 mg dose for our Phase 3 lipid trials and CVOT. 20 Our Phase 2b OCEAN trial, which we completed in June 2021, evaluated the effect of obicetrapib as a combination therapy with ezetimibe on LDL-C levels. This randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial among 100 patients with mild dyslipidemia involved once-daily oral 5 mg dose of obicetrapib alone and as a combination therapy with 10 mg of ezetimibe, compared to both placebo and ezetimibe alone, for eight weeks. The primary endpoint of the trial was percent change in LDL-C compared to baseline, which was met. We observed that obicetrapib 5 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg and their combination each significantly reduced LDL-C from baseline and compared with placebo, with statistically significant reductions compared to baseline measured at 34.4%, 14.8% and 52.0%, respectively, compared to a 1.4% reduction in the placebo group. The results are summarized as follows: Median (min, max) LDL-C levels (mg/dL) at baseline and EOT Time Placebo Ezetimibe 10mg Obicetrapib 5mg Obi 5 + Eze 10mg Baseline Median 136.0 127.0 121.0 123.0 (101, 177) (76, 189) (82, 153) (89, 186) (N=24) (N=27) (N=27) (N=27) EoT Median 138.0 105.0 86.5 63.5 (88, 193) (66, 142) (38, 137) (34, 133) (N=25) (N=24) (N=26) (N=24) % change from Baseline median -2.0 -14.90 -30.10 -51.40 (-24.5, 35.9) (-46.8, 46.9) (-56.7, 19.1) (-69.6, 8.1) (N=27) (N=25) (N=25) (N=24) % change from Baseline LS Mean (95%CI) p-value 1.40 -12.86 -30.70 -40.95 (-6.03, 8.84) (-20.29, -5.42) (-38.21, -23.19) (-48.73, -33.16) 0.7116 0.0007 <0.0001 <0.0001 We also observed median ApoB reductions of 23.5%, 8.9% and 34.8% for obicetrapib 5 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg and their combination, respectively, compared to 0.9% reduction in the placebo group. Median (min, max) ApoB levels (mg/dL) at baseline and EOT Time Placebo Ezetimibe 10mg Obicetrapib 5mg Obi 5mg + Eze 10mg Baseline Median 105.5 103.0 102.0 105.0 (74, 141) (79, 133) (74, 124) (77, 158) (N=28) (N=28) (N=28) (N=27) EoT Median 107.0 94.0 75.0 73.0 (69, 153) (59, 137) (45, 103) (49, 105) (N=27) (N=25) (N=26) (N=24) % change from Baseline Median -0.9 -8.9 -23.5 -34.8 (-19.8, 25.4) (-45.4, 32.3) (-39.3, 21.2) (-53.0, 8.9) (N=27) (N=25) (N=26) (N=24) Obicetrapib 5 mg alone and as a combination therapy with ezetimibe 10 mg taken once daily for eight weeks displayed a favorable tolerability profile. TEAEs were reported by 4 (14.3%) subjects in the obicetrapib 5 mg group and 9 (33.3%) subjects in the combination group, compared with 8 (28.6%) subjects in the ezetimibe 10 mg group and six subjects in the placebo group. For all treatment groups, the most common TEAEs were diarrhea (3.6%), headache (3.6%), myalgia (1.8%) and constipation (1.8%). All other TEAEs were experienced by one or no subjects in each treatment group. TEAEs that were considered to be related to trial treatment were reported by one subject and three subjects in the obicetrapib 5 mg and combination groups, respectively, compared with three subjects and four subjects in the ezetimibe 10 mg and placebo groups, respectively. There were no TEAEs leading to death. One subject in the ezetimibe 10 mg group had a TEAE leading to discontinuation of the trial drug, compared to no subjects in the 5 mg group and two subjects in the combination group. The majority of TEAEs were mild and moderate in severity, and one subject in the ezetimibe 10 mg group had a severe TEAE. ROSE2 Clinical Trial On June 3, 2023, we announced full results from our Phase 2 ROSE2 trial, our clinical trial evaluating obicetrapib in combination with ezetimibe as an adjunct to high-intensity statin therapy. ROSE2 met its primary and secondary endpoints, with statistically significant reductions in LDL-C and ApoB observed. Statistically significant improvements in non-HDL-C and total and small LDL-P were also observed. 21 We also observed significant improvements in Lp(a). In addition, the combination of obicetrapib and ezetimibe was observed to be well-tolerated, with a safety profile observed to be comparable to placebo. ROSE2 was designed as a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib 10 mg in combination with ezetimibe 10 mg as an adjunct to high-intensity statin therapy. Patients were randomized to receive combination therapy, obicetrapib 10 mg or placebo for a 12 week treatment period. A total of 119 patients enrolled in ROSE2, of whom 97 were included in the on-treatment analysis. Certain patients were excluded from the on treatment population as a result of suspected non-adherence to the trial protocol. Patients presented at baseline with a fasting LDL-C greater than 70 mg/dL and triglycerides less than 400 mg/dL and all were receiving a stable dose of high-intensity statin therapy. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to week 12 in Friedewald-calculated LDL-C for the obicetrapib plus ezetimibe combination treatment group compared with placebo. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the percent changes from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C for obicetrapib monotherapy compared with placebo and in ApoB for the obicetrapib plus ezetimibe combination compared with placebo and the obicetrapib monotherapy compared with placebo. Exploratory endpoints included the percent changes from baseline to week 12 in lipoprotein(a), non-HDL-C, HDL-C, total and small LDL-P assessed by NMR, and the proportion of patients at the end of treatment who achieved LDL-C levels below 100 mg/dL, 70 mg/dL and 55 mg/dL for the obicetrapib plus ezetimibe combination and obicetrapib monotherapy groups compared with placebo. A summary of key observations from the ROSE2 trial is set forth below: Topline Results The p-value for the LS mean for each endpoint presented in the table below compared to placebo was <0.0001. The table below shows the median percent change from baseline in patients receiving the combination of obicetrapib and ezetimibe, obicetrapib monotherapy and placebo. Median Percent Change from Baseline Placebo (n=40) Obicetrapib 10 mg (n=26) Obicetrapib 10 mg + Ezetimibe 10 mg (n=31) Friedewald-calculated LDL-C -6.4 -43.5 -63.4 ApoB -2.1 -24.2 -34.4 Non-HDL-C -5.6 -37.5 -55.6 Total LDL-P -5.7 -54.8 -72.1 Small LDL-P -8.3 -92.7 -95.4 LDL-P size -0.5 1.5 1.8 In addition, we observed median reduction in Lp(a) of 47.2% and 40.2% in the monotherapy and combination arms, respectively. 22 Percent Change from Baseline to 12 Weeks in Lipid Biomarkers Placebo Obicetrapib 10 mg Obicetrapib 10 mg / Ezetimibe 10 mg LDL-C Baseline: n Median (min, max) Percent Change: Median (min, max) LS Mean (SE) 1 p-value vs. placebo 40 26 31 95.5 (60, 211) 100.0 (35, 189) 87.0 (62, 152) -6.4 (-36.4, 96.7) -43.5 (-78.4, 22.6) -63.4 (-83.7, 29.7) -0.85 (3.47) -39.20 (4.13) -59.2 (3.79) <0.0001 <0.0001 ApoB Baseline: n Median (min, max) Percent Change: Median (min, max) LS Mean (SE) 1 p-value vs. placebo 40 26 31 89.0 (52, 146) 85.0 (33, 130) 85.0 (56, 130) -2.1 (-30.9, 76.9) -24.2 (-44.8, 27.1) -34.4 (-54.3, 14.7) 0.72 (2.57) -21.6 (3.10) -35.0 (2.80) <0.0001 <0.0001 HDL-C Baseline: n Median (min, max) Percent Change: Median (min, max) LS Mean (SE) 1 p-value vs placebo 40 26 31 42.5 (31, 68) 47.0 (28, 111) 46.0 (28, 76) 0.75 (-33.3, 45.0) 142 (34.9, 311) 136 (46.5, 261) -0.32 (6.71) 151 (8.15) 144 (7.27) <0.0001 <0.0001 non-HDL-C Baseline: n Median (min, max) Percent Change: Median (min, max) LS Mean (SE) 1 p-value vs placebo 40 26 31 126 (73, 227) 122 (57, 209) 116 (77, 189) -5.6 (-34.9, 83.6) -37.5 (-59.2, 20.0) -55.6 (-76.2, -30.8) -0.84 (2.99) -33.8 (3.55) -54.0 (3.25) 0.0005 <0.0001 1 In addition, the combination of obicetrapib plus ezetimibe resulted in significantly more patients achieving LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL, 70 mg/dL and 55 mg/dL than the placebo group (100%, 93.5% and 87.1% compared to 66.7%, 16.7% and 0.0%, respectively) (p<0.05 compared to placebo for combination therapy). These results are presented in further detail below: Overall, obicetrapib alone and in combination with ezetimibe was observed to be well-tolerated compared to placebo. TEAEs were reported by 11 (27.5%) subjects in the combination group, 8 (20.5%) subjects in the monotherapy group and 16 (40.0%) subjects in the placebo group. For all treatment groups, the most common AEs nausea (3.4%), urinary tract infection (2.5%), and headache (2.5%). Overall, no drug-related, TESAEs were observed, and there were no TEAEs leading to death. One subject in the combination group had a TEAE leading to discontinuation of the trial drug, compared to two in the monotherapy group and two in the placebo group. There were two severe TEAEs in the placebo group (both nervous system disorders) and one in the monotherapy group (a cardiac disorder). 23 We believe that the stronger observed LDL-C lowering among patients receiving the combination therapy as compared with those receiving ezetimibe in combination with statin therapy is potentially due to the synergistic mechanisms of action for each of obicetrapib and ezetimibe. While obicetrapib is designed to promote the expression of LDL receptors in the liver, there is evidence that CETP inhibition also promotes cholesterol excretion into the intestines, where ezetimibe is designed to block cholesterol reabsorption into the body. Therefore, the combined mechanism is expected to synergistically enhance fecal sterol removal of cholesterol, as shown in the figure below. As suggested by the calculations below, we believe that LDL-C lowering effects of ezetimibe can be enhanced by introducing obicetrapib to help facilitate this synergistic mechanism of action. The calculations above are not based on a head-to-head comparison or clinical trial and are hypothetical calculations. These calculations are based on the findings in our ROSE2 trial with respect to the figures on the bottom right and the findings of source noted above with respect to the figures on the bottom left, and assume one patient was treated with each drug independently. In parallel with the ROSE2 trial, we formulated two prototype fixed dose combination tablets of obicetrapib and ezetimibe. These formulations were compared to the co-administration of obicetrapib and ezetimibe in a pilot bioequivalence trial, which was completed in the first half of 2023. Based on the results of this pilot bioequivalence trial and the data and learnings from our ROSE2 trial, we have selected a formulation for a fixed-dose combination tablet of obicetrapib and ezetimibe and we anticipate initiating TANDEM, a Phase 3 pivotal trial, to evaluate 10 mg obicetrapib and 10 mg ezetimibe as a fixed-dose combination used as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-lowering in patients with HeFH, ASCVD or ASCVD risk equivalent patients, in the first quarter of 2024 and releasing topline data in the first quarter of 2025. Our goal is to submit an NDA for the combination shortly after submitting an NDA for obicetrapib as a monotherapy. Japan Phase 2b Clinical Trial On June 5, 2023, we announced topline results from our Phase 2b Japan trial evaluating the effects of three doses of obicetrapib (2.5 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg) on LDL-C levels. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib as an adjunct to stable statin therapy in Japanese patients. The trial was conducted at hospitals and clinics across Japan. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to end of treatment (day 56) in LDL-C for each obicetrapib group compared 24 to placebo. The trial enrolled 102 adult participants, who were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive obicetrapib 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg or placebo for the 56-day treatment period. Patients treated with obicetrapib 2.5 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg achieved a median reduction in LDL-C of 24.8%, 31.9%, and 45.8%, respectively, as compared to patients treated with placebo, who achieved a median reduction in LDL-C of 0.9%. In addition, patients treated with obicetrapib 10 mg achieved a median reduction in ApoB of 29.7%, compared to a 0.4% reduction in patients treated with placebo, and a median reduction in non-HDL-C of 37.0%, as compared to a 0.4% reduction in patients treated with placebo. The p-value for each endpoint in the obicetrapib arms of the trial compared to placebo was <0.0001. Overall, the different dosages of obicetrapib were observed to be generally well-tolerated, with a safety profile comparable to placebo. TEAEs were reported by 15 (57.7%) subjects in the 10 mg obicetrapib group, 7 (28.0%) subjects in the 5 mg obicetrapib group, 9 (36.0%) subjects in the 2.5 mg group and 15 (57.7%) subjects in the placebo group. AEs observed to date were primarily mild. One TESAE was observed in the 5 mg group, but it was not considered by the investigator to be related to trial treatment. Overall, no drug-related TESAEs were observed, and there were no TEAEs leading to death. Phase 1 Clinical Trials We have completed seven Phase 1 clinical trials of obicetrapib in healthy patients to date, which are summarized in the below table. Phase 1 Trial Design Treatment / Formulation Results TA-8995-01: Single ascending dose study in healthy Caucasian and Japanese subjects Randomized, double-blind, single-dose, placebo-controlled trial in healthy men and women. 12 groups of 8 subjects. 2 to 6 randomized to placebo or active treatment. Single oral dose of 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 and 150 mg obicetrapib capsules, or Single oral dose of placebo Dose-dependent and sustained inhibition of CETP activity accompanied by a decrease in LDL-C and ApoB and increases in CETP, HDL-C, ApoA1 and ApoE. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics generally consistent across ethnicity, age and gender. TA-8995-E02: Multiple ascending dose study in healthy subjects Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential, multiple ascending-dose design. 5 groups of 12 subjects randomized to placebo or active treatment. Duration of treatment: 28 days of dosing for group 1, 21 days for groups 2-5. Multiple oral dosages of 5, 10, 2.5, 1, and 25 mg obicetrapib capsules, or Multiple oral dosages of placebo No safety or tolerability issues observed. Single and multiple doses of up to 25 mg of obicetrapib did not yield adverse effects on vital signs or ECG changes, nor did clinical laboratory assessments and physical examinations reveal any safety issues. The maximum percent reduction in CETP activity from baseline following the 5 mg and 10 mg doses were 90.9% and 97.6%, respectively. TA-8995-07: Study to assess the mass balance recovery, pharmacokinetics, metabolism and excretion of 14 C-TA-8995 in healthy male subjects Open label, single oral dose study in 6 subjects. 10 mL 14 C-obicetrapib oral suspension, containing 10 mg and 100 µCi of 14 C-obicetrapib Obicetrapib was steadily absorbed with a median of 4.5 hours to maximum absorption levels. Median half-life was 161 hours. A mean of 63.8% radioactivity was recovered in the feces and 15.4% in the urine, Overall total recovery of radioactivity in excreta approximately 78% of the administered dose. 25 Phase 1 Trial Design Treatment / Formulation Results TA-8995-04: Study of the electrocardiographic effects of TA-8995 in healthy male and female subjects 135 subjects randomized to one of 3 study treatments. Single oral dose of 150 mg obicetrapib capsules, or Single oral dose of placebo, or Single open-label oral dose of 400 mg moxifloxacin No clinically meaningful effects on any ECG parameter were observed. TA-8995-05: A Phase 1, open label study to assess the effects of TA-8995 on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam and digoxin in healthy male subjects Open label, crossover, fixed sequence study in 16 healthy male subjects. Duration of treatment up to 15 days. Digoxin 0.25 mg oral tablet on the morning of Days 1 and 13 Midazolam 5 mg oral solution on the morning of Days 2 and 14 obicetrapib 25 mg (2 x 10 mg and 1 x 5 mg) oral capsules on the morning of Day 8 and 10 mg oral capsule on the morning of Days 9 to 15. No significant effect on digoxin was observed, with a statistically significant decrease in midazolam plasma. Absorption rates of digoxin and midazolam were unaffected by the presence of multiple doses of obicetrapib. TA-8995-08: Bioequivalence study of capsule and tablet formulations of TA-8995 in healthy male subjects Open-label, randomized, 2 treatment period (3 days), cross-over study in 26 subjects 5 mg obicetrapib orally, either as a capsule or as a tablet in the first treatment period, and vice versa in the second treatment period. Obicetrapib formulated as a tablet was bioequivalent to obicetrapib formulated as a capsule in terms of overall concentration over time but not in terms of the maximum observed concentration, which varied among study subjects. TA-8995-06: A Phase 1 study of the effects of TA-8995 on Lp(a) in male and female subjects with elevated Lp(a) Single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled, parallel-group TA-8995 10 mg once daily, TA-8995 2.5 mg once daily, or matching placebo once daily. There were statistically significant reductions in Lp(a) in both the TA-8995 2.5 mg and 10 mg groups, compared with placebo, at week 12 (primary endpoint) and at week 4 (secondary endpoint). There were statistically significant increases in HDL-C, Phase 1 Trial Design Treatment / Formulation Results ApoA1, and ApoE levels and decreases in LDL-C and ApoB levels, at week 12, for both the TA-8995 2.5 mg and 10 mg groups, compared with placebo. TA-8995 2.5 mg and 10 mg once daily for 12 weeks was generally well tolerated in subjects with elevated Lp(a) levels. TA-8995-09: A randomized, open-label, two-sequence, two-period, two-treatment crossover study to evaluate the effect of food on the bioavailability of obicetrapib tablets in healthy adult subjects Open-label, single-dose, randomized, 2-sequence, 2-period, 2-treatment crossover study in 30 subjects 10 mg obicetrapib tablets orally administered either after an overnight fast of at least 10 hours (Treatment T1, fasted) or at 30 minutes after the start of a completed standardized high-fat, high-calorie breakfast that was preceded by an overnight fast of at least 10 hours (Treatment T2, fed) Based on the plasma concentration data for obicetrapib, the peak and overall systemic exposure were 55-59% greater under fed conditions compared to that of fasted conditions. The least-squares geometric mean of fed versus fasted ratios were 154.87%, 155.42% and 158.53% for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞ and C max , respectively. 26 Obicetrapib for Other Therapeutic Areas Alzheimer’s disease According to the World Health Organization, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias affect approximately 55 million people as of 2021, and this is expected to increase to 78 million in 2030 and 139 million in 2050. Alzheimer’s disease is the most prevalent form of dementia, resulting in the generalized degeneration of the brain. In a healthy brain, excess cholesterol levels in the neurons and amyloid-beta (“Ab”) peptide removal from brain parenchyma are regulated properly. The brain is the most cholesterol-rich organ in the body; comprising only two percent of the body’s mass, it contains approximately 20% of the body’s cholesterol, which is recycled and redistributed through an ApoE-mediated lipoprotein pathway. Inside populations of cells called astrocytes, ApoE binds with cholesterol that has been released into the brain by neurons and converts it into a different form of cholesterol that is transported out of the brain into the systemic circulation. In addition to ApoE, the protein associated with HDL, ApoA1, also acts as the brain’s “vacuum cleaner,” by removing toxic cholesterol from peripheral tissue to promote healthy cell function and survival. In addition, small HDL particles that transverse the blood brain barrier remove excess Ab peptides in brain parenchyma for ultimate conversion and transport out of the brain. Alzheimer’s disease, however, is characterized in part by the aggregation of Aβ peptides into amyloid plaques in brain parenchyma, facilitated by the presence of excess cholesterol in cell membranes. Thus, the accumulation of cholesterol in cell membranes and the ineffective clearance of Aβ plaques by ApoE and ApoA1 in their HDL forms is associated with the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Importantly, certain forms of ApoE (in particular, ApoE4) are worse at Ab transport than others, such as ApoE2, and are known to be associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Further, CETP activity has been detected in astrocytes, the cells where ApoE bind with cholesterol, indicating the potential for a CETP inhibitor to function in the brain similarly to its lipid-modifying effects in the cardiovascular system. Genetic studies have shown that CETP loss of function mutations mitigate the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in patients with the ApoE4 genotype. Based on these observations as well as the marked increases of ApoA1 in the circulation observed in our Phase 2 clinical trials and the increases in ApoE in the circulation observed in the TULIP trial, we have conducted preclinical assessments of obicetrapib for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Following a Type B meeting in June 2021, the FDA confirmed that our preclinical data are sufficient to support a proposed clinical trial of obicetrapib for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. We commenced a Phase 2a open-label and single-arm clinical trial in early 2022 in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease and the ApoE4 mutation to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib. A total of 13 patients were given 10 mg obicetrapib and followed for 24 weeks. In September 2023, we announced initial data from this trial. We observed reductions in the levels of 24-hydroxycholesterol and 27-hydroxycholestrol of 11% and 12%, respectively, in the CSF compared to baseline. In addition, an increase of 8% compared to baseline in the Aβ42/40 ratio in patient’s plasma was observed and pTau181 levels were observed to be stable. Increases in 24-hydroxycholesterol and 27-hydroxycholesterol over time have been observed previously to lead to a rise in cognitive and related functional impairment. We believe reductions of these oxysterols in the CSF may indicate improved cholesterol metabolism in the brain and may lead to improved cognitive function. In addition, this trial assessed the Aβ42/40 ratio and plasma pTau181, also believed to be biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, with lower levels of Aβ42/40 and increased levels of pTau181 having been associated with a greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Overall, obicetrapib was observed to be well-tolerated. No serious AEs were reported, nor were any AEs considered to be related to the trial drug. Manufacturing and Supply We currently have no manufacturing facilities and a small but experienced group of personnel managing manufacturing activities. We rely on several contract manufacturers to produce both drug substances and drug products required for our clinical trials. Obicetrapib and obicetrapib and ezetimibe FDC tablets are manufactured and tested in accordance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”) at facilities in the United States, Canada and Italy. Marketing and Sales While we do not currently have the internal marketing, sales or distribution capabilities necessary to commercialize obicetrapib or any future product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, we are currently developing our own commercial infrastructure and capabilities in the United States and have entered, and expect to continue entering, into arrangements with third parties to perform these services outside of the United States. We may also opportunistically seek strategic collaborations to maximize the commercial opportunities for our future product candidates inside and outside the United States. We entered into an exclusive license agreement, dated June 23, 2022, with Menarini (the “Menarini License”), pursuant to which Menarini has been granted the exclusive rights to commercialize obicetrapib 10 mg either as a sole active ingredient product or in a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe in the majority of European countries, if approved. As any future product candidates near regulatory approval and potential commercial launch, we plan to assess our options for commercializing each respective product candidate and may choose to commercialize themselves ourselves or with a partner. 27 Menarini License We entered into the Menarini License, pursuant to which we granted Menarini an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license under certain of our intellectual property and our regulatory documentation to undertake post approval development activities and commercialize multiple brands of obicetrapib in a single unit dose of 10 mg or less, either as a sole active ingredient product or in a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe (the “Licensed Products”), for any use in the majority of European countries (the “Menarini Territory”). We retained all rights to obicetrapib in all other territories and in other dosages. We are solely responsible for conducting the development activities to obtain regulatory approval for obicetrapib. Menarini may conduct market access studies, medical affairs activities, non-registration studies and Phase IV clinical trials in the Menarini Territory. Menarini will be responsible for submitting and obtaining the required regulatory approvals to commercialize obicetrapib (at the licensed dosage) in the Menarini Territory and will own the regulatory approvals, if received. Menarini will also be solely responsible for commercializing obicetrapib (at the licensed dosage), if approved, and will be required to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize obicetrapib in the Menarini Territory. Pursuant to the Menarini License, Menarini made an upfront payment to us of €115.0 million. Menarini has also committed to providing €27.5 million in funding for our research and development activities over several years, together with bearing 50% of any development costs incurred in respect of the pediatric population in the Menarini Territory. We are also eligible to receive up to an additional €863 million upon the achievement of various clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones. If obicetrapib is approved and successfully commercialized by Menarini, we will be entitled to tiered royalties ranging from the low double digits to the mid-twenties as a percentage of net sales in the Menarini Territory, with royalty step-downs in the event of generic entrance or in respect of required third-party intellectual property payments. The Menarini License will expire on the last to expire royalty term, which is determined on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis, and is the later of (i) the expiration of the last to expire licensed patent that includes a valid claim in the country, (ii) expiration of regulatory exclusivity granted by the prevailing governmental authority for the licensed product in the country or (iii) 12 years from the first commercial sale of the licensed product in the country. In addition, Menarini is expected to purchase obicetrapib and obicetrapib and ezetimibe FDC tablets from us in accordance with a supply agreement to be entered into by Menarini and us (the “Supply Agreement”). We will supply all required quantities of products for the Menarini Territory as set forth in the Supply Agreement. Through December 31, 2023, we received one milestone payment from Menarini under the Menarini License upon the achievement of a clinical milestone. Intellectual Property Our future commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important inventions, to obtain and maintain know-how related to our business, including our product candidates, to defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular our patent rights, to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and to operate without infringing, misappropriating, or violating the valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. Our ability to preclude or restrict third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing competing molecules to our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents and trade secrets that cover these activities. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. We strive to protect and enhance our proprietary inventions and improvements that we consider commercially important to the development of our business, including by seeking, maintaining, and defending U.S. and foreign patent rights. All of the issued patents and pending patent applications in our patent portfolio are owned by our subsidiary, NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V., Dutch Chamber of Commerce registry number 55971946. As of December 31, 2023, we owned eight issued U.S. patents and 16 pending U.S. patent applications. We also owned 100 granted European patents and four pending European patent applications, two granted Chinese patents and seven pending Chinese patent applications. In addition, we owned 75 granted patents and 58 pending patent applications in other foreign jurisdictions, including international applications under the PCT. The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific, and factual issues. We cannot predict whether any patent applications we pursue will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction, or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application may be significantly reduced before a patent is granted, and its scope can be reinterpreted and even challenged after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any of our products will be protected or remain protectable by enforceable patents. Moreover, any patents that we license or may own in the future may be challenged, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. In addition, because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a product candidate we may develop, it is possible that, before our product candidate can be commercialized successfully, any related patents may expire 28 or remain in force for only a short period following commercial launch, thereby limiting the protection such patent would afford the applicable product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide. For any individual patent, the term depends on the applicable law in the country in which the patent is issued. In most countries where we have patents and patent applications, including the United States, patents have a term of 20 years from the application filing date or earliest claimed nonprovisional priority date. In the United States, the patent term may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over another patent that expires earlier. The term of a U.S. patent may also be lengthened by a patent term adjustment that is awarded by the USPTO, in order to address administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent. In the United States, the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may be eligible for patent term extension in order to restore the period of a patent term lost during the premarket FDA regulatory review process. Specifically, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the natural expiration of the patent (but the total patent term, including the extension period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval). The patent term extension period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the IND for the first investigation involving human beings and the submission date of an NDA seeking FDA approval, plus the entire time from submission date of the NDA to the ultimate approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for patent term extension, and only those claims covering the approved product, an approved method for using the approved product, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The application for patent term extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any Patent Term Extension in consultation with the FDA. Prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the USPTO and other patent offices may be significantly revised before issuance, if granted at all. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “ Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property .” The issued patents and pending patent applications for obicetrapib as of December 31, 2023 are detailed below. Obicetrapib First Generation Patents The patent portfolio for obicetrapib composition of matter includes a first generation patent family directed generally to compounds, pharmaceutical compositions comprising the compounds, and methods of treatment using the compounds and pharmaceutical compositions. We have two granted patents in the United States covering a genus of compounds that includes obicetrapib and claims that more narrowly cover the obicetrapib compound, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of treatment. In Europe, we have 17 granted patents. In Asia, we have one granted patent in China, two granted patents in Japan, one granted patent in the Republic of Korea, one granted patent in Taiwan and one granted patent in Singapore. We have one granted patent in India. In North America outside of the United States, we have one granted patent in Canada and one granted patent in Mexico. In addition we have 14 granted patents in other foreign jurisdictions. Patent applications are pending in Argentina and Thailand. Patents, and patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between April 2025 and August 2027, without taking potential patent term extensions into account. The first generation portfolio also includes a patent family covering a method of synthesizing obicetrapib. We have one patent in the United States, five patents in Europe including the United Kingdom, and one patent in Japan in this latter patent family. Patents in this family are expected to expire between March 29, 2027 and March 31, 2029, not including patent term extensions. Obicetrapib Second Generation Patents Our second generation obicetrapib patent portfolio includes a patent family directed to solid oral dosage forms containing 5 to 10 mg of obicetrapib, including tablet forms, and methods of treatment comprising administration of 1 to 25 mg of obicetrapib daily. We have three granted patents in the United States. We have 39 granted patents in Europe. In Asia, we have no granted patents in China, one granted patent in the Republic of Korea, one granted patent in Japan, one granted patent in Taiwan, one granted patent in Singapore and one granted patent in Hong Kong. We have one granted patent in India. In North America outside of the United States, we have one granted patent in Mexico and one granted patent in Canada. In addition, we have 15 granted patents in other foreign jurisdictions. Patent applications are pending in Argentina, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Libya, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela and the United States. Patents, and patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire in February 2034, without taking potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustment into account. We also have a patent family directed to compositions that contain obicetrapib and a statin, methods of treating with compositions that contain obicetrapib and a statin, and in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions, methods of use in which obicetrapib and a statin are separately administered. We have one granted patent in the United States. We have a pending application, but no granted patents, in Europe. In Asia, we have no granted patents in China, two granted patent in Japan, one granted in the Republic of Korea and two granted patent in Taiwan. In North America outside of the United States, we have one granted patent in Mexico and one granted patent in Canada. In addition, we have two granted patents in other foreign jurisdictions. Patent applications are pending in China, Hong Kong, Thailand and Venezuela. Patents, and patent applications if granted, are expected to expire between February 2034 and August 2035, without taking potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustment into account. 29 In addition, we have a patent family that claims a synthetic intermediate used in the synthetic process we intend to use commercially, as well as processes to make that intermediate. We have one issued US patent and 39 granted patents in Europe. In Asia, we have one granted patent in China, one granted patent in Hong Kong, one granted patent in Japan, one granted patent in Singapore, one granted patent in Taiwan and one granted patent in India. In North America outside of the United States, we have one granted patent in Mexico and one granted patent in Canada. In addition, we have 14 granted patents in other foreign jurisdictions. Patent applications are pending in Argentina, Europe, Republic of Korea and Venezuela. Patents, and patent applications if granted, are expected to expire in July 2035, without taking potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustment into account. Obicetrapib Third Generation Patents We have pending US, PCT, Argentina, Taiwan, Pakistan and Lebanon applications covering the solid salt form of obicetrapib that we intend to commercialize and the process for its commercial synthesis. Patents if granted are expected to expire in July 2043, without taking potential patent term adjustment or extensions into account. We also have patent families directed to various compositions and methods of use of obicetrapib as a combination therapy. These families all consist of pending applications. Two of these families are directed to combinations with ezetimibe, one of which is for use in certain subpopulations of patients and one of which is directed to improved formulation of obicetrapib in fixed dose combinations with ezetimibe. Patents if granted are expected to expire in February 2042 and August 2043, without taking potential patent term adjustment or extensions into account. Another family is directed to a combination with statins, for use in certain subpopulations. Patents if granted are expected to expire in July 2042, without taking potential patent term adjustment or extensions into account. We also have two families directed to combinations with SGLT2 inhibitors. If granted, these patents are expected to expire in December 2042 and April 2044, without taking potential patent term adjustment or extensions into account. In addition, we have two patent families covering methods of using obicetrapib to treat neurodegenerative diseases. The first of these families currently consists of patent applications pending in the United States, Europe, China and other jurisdictions. If granted, these patents are expected to expire in March 2042, without taking potential patent term adjustment or extensions into account. The second family consists of a PCT application. Any patents that grant from this second family will expire in September 2043, without taking potential patent term adjustments or patent term extensions into account. Finally, we have one patent family, consisting of pending patent applications, drawn to treatment of another clinical indication. Patents if granted from this family will expire in November 2044, without taking potential patent term adjustments or patent term extensions into account. Trade Secrets We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, confidential information and continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in our field and protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. While we take measures to protect and preserve our trade secrets, such measures can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our collaborators, employees and consultants. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. We cannot guarantee, however, that we have executed such agreements with all applicable counterparties. Furthermore, these agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors and other third parties, or misused by any collaborator to whom we disclose such information. To the extent that our collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “ Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property .” 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, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing, and export and import of drug products. We, along with any third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies, clinical trials or seek approval of our products and product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. 30 U.S. Drug Development Process In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”), as amended, and its implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before it may be legally marketed in the United States, and this process generally involves the following: • completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies, and formulation studies in accordance with FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) requirements and other applicable regulations; • submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually and when certain changes are made; • approval by an independent investigational review board (“IRB”) or independent ethics committee (“EC”) at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) regulations, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use; • preparation of and submission to the FDA of an NDA after completion of pivotal trials; • a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA to file the application for review; • 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 cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; • potential FDA audit of the nonclinical study and/or clinical trials sites that generated data in support of the NDA; and • FDA review and approval of the NDA to permit commercial marketing of the product for particular indications for use in the United States. Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, a sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical trials. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial or not allowing it to commence on the terms originally specified in the IND. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the trial until completed. Some trials also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. 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. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries. A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the clinical trial complies with regulatory requirements if the data is to be used in support of NDA approval. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign 31 clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the trial was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection, if deemed necessary. 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 healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These trials are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, excretion and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. • Phase 2 : The product candidate is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages, and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials. • Phase 3 : The product candidate is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy, and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval and labeling. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of an NDA. In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 trials may be conducted after initial marketing approval and may be used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA. 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. In addition, 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. While the IND is active and before approval, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected AEs, findings from other trials suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. In addition, 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 the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase 2 trial to discuss Phase 2 clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug. U.S. Review and Approval Process Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical, and other nonclinical 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. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including trials initiated by independent investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. 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 accepted for filing, 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. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the filing date to complete its initial review and act on a standard NDA for a drug that is a new molecular entity, and of ten months from the date of NDA receipt to review and act on a standard NDA for a drug that is not a new molecular entity. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. 32 The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates, and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within designated specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs and assure the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. After the FDA evaluates an NDA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”). An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A CRL will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the NDA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the CRL without first conducting required inspections and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the CRL, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the NDA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of an NDA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product. If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. The FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-marketing trials and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”) requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs and supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate 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 the FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials 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. U.S. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA offers a number of expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. For example, the Fast Track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a Fast Track designated product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the product candidate may be eligible for priority review. A Fast Track-designated product may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted. Rolling review may occur if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. A product candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product candidate can receive Breakthrough Therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate, alone or as a combination therapy with one or more other drugs may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers. 33 A marketing application for a drug submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product candidate with a Fast Track designation and/or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available alternatives for such disease or condition. For new-molecular-entity NDAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date, or with respect to non-new-molecular-entity NDAs, within six months of the NDA receipt date. Additionally, product candidates studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may utilize an accelerated approval pathway upon a determination that the product has an effect on (1) a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or (2) a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to withdrawal of its approval if, for example, the sponsor fails to conduct the required post-marketing trials or if such trials fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review designation, and the accelerated approval pathway do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval, but may expedite the development or review process. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. U.S. Marketing Exclusivity Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDA provides periods of non-patent regulatory exclusivity, which provides the holder of an approved NDA limited protection from new competition in the marketplace. Five years of exclusivity are available to new chemical entities (“NCEs”). An NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion, excluding those appended portions of the molecule that cause the drug to be an ester, salt, including a salt with hydrogen or coordination bonds, or other noncovalent, or not involving the sharing of electron pairs between atoms, derivatives, such as a complex (i.e., formed by the chemical interaction of two compounds), chelate (i.e., a chemical compound), or clathrate (i.e., a polymer framework that traps molecules), of the molecule, responsible for the physiological or pharmacological activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review or approve an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the same active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application, however, may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification of patent invalidity, unenforceability, or non-infringement is filed. The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA, if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active ingredient for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a 505(b)(1) NDA; however, an applicant submitting a 505(b)(1) NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy. The FDA may also grant pediatric exclusivity, which provides a six-month extension to existing regulatory or patent exclusivity. To be eligible for pediatric exclusivity, the FDA must issue a Written Request detailing the trials to be performed and the timeframe for their completion. If an applicant agrees to perform the trials as outlined in the Written Request, the applicant must submit trial reports at least nine months prior to the expiry of the exclusivity that is to be extended. The trial reports must demonstrate that the applicant has met the conditions of the Written Request. U.S. Post-approval Requirements Drug products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. In rare cases, pre-approval of promotional materials may be required. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. Further, for certain modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling 34 or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain prior FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development and submission of additional data. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors 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, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements in the event of a deviation. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and other tracking requirements and must notify the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance. The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market trials or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: • restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls; • fines, warning letters or untitled letters; • clinical holds on clinical trials; • refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications or suspension or revocation of product approvals; • product seizure or detention or refusal to permit the import or export of products; • consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs; • mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information; • the issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases, and other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; or • injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity, and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising, and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labelling. Other Healthcare Laws In the United States, drug manufacturers and sponsors are subject to a number of federal and state healthcare regulatory laws that restrict business practices in the healthcare industry. These laws include, but are not limited to, federal and state anti-kickback, false claims, and other healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as follows: The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, receiving, or providing any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for, or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any good, facility, item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. The federal false claims laws, including the federal False Claims Act (the “FCA”), prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. 35 A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Actions under the civil FCA may be brought by the U.S. Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil FCA. In addition, the civil monetary penalties statute, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits, among other things, the offer or transfer of remuneration, including waivers of copayments and deductible amounts (or any part thereof), to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state healthcare program. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and their respective implementing regulations, which impose obligations on “covered entities,” including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective “business associates” and their respective subcontractors that create, receive, maintain, or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information. The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors), certain other healthcare professionals including physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants, and certified-nurse midwives). There are federal price reporting laws, which require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, and such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products. Similar state and local laws and regulations may also restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales, and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or by patients themselves; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing information and marketing expenditures or which require tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to physicians, other healthcare providers and entities; and state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. Violations of any of these laws and other applicable healthcare fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including fines and civil monetary penalties, the possibility of exclusion from federal healthcare programs (including Medicare and Medicaid), disgorgement and corporate integrity agreements, which impose, among other things, rigorous operational and monitoring requirements on companies. Similar sanctions and penalties, as well as imprisonment, also can be imposed upon executive officers and employees of such companies. Coverage and Reimbursement Sales of any pharmaceutical product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. In the United States, no uniform policy exists for coverage and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products among third-party payors. Therefore, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of such product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. 36 Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication, or place products at certain formulary levels that result in lower reimbursement levels and higher cost-sharing obligation imposed on patients. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, and they often require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, which can be a time- consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Moreover, as a condition of participating in, and having products covered under, certain federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, we are subject to federal laws and regulations that require pharmaceutical manufacturers to calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as Medicaid Average Manufacturer Price (“AMP”), and Best Price, Medicare Average Sales Price, the 340B Ceiling Price and Non-Federal AMP reported to the Department of Veteran Affairs, and with respect to Medicaid, pay statutory rebates on utilization of manufacturers’ products by Medicaid beneficiaries. Compliance with such laws and regulations require significant resources and any findings of non-compliance may have a material adverse effect on our revenues. Healthcare Reform In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system. In the United States, by way of example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”) was signed into law, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; required manufacturers to participate in a coverage gap discount program, under which they must agree to offer point-of-sale discounts (increased to 70%, effective as of January 1, 2019) off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs; implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive and Congressional legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. In December 2017, Congress repealed the tax penalty, effective January 1, 2019, for an individual’s failure to maintain ACA-mandated health insurance as part of the Tax Act. President Biden issued an executive order that instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. Further, there have been a number of health reform initiatives by the Biden administration that have impacted the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (the “IRA”) into law, which sets forth meaningful changes to drug product reimbursement by Medicare. Among other actions, the IRA permits the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to engage in price-capped negotiation to set the price of certain drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. The IRA contains statutory exclusions to the negotiation program, including for certain orphan designated drugs for which the only approved indication (or indications) is for the orphan disease or condition. Should our product candidates be approved and covered by Medicare Part B or Part D, and fail to fall within a statutory exclusion, such as that for an orphan drug, those products could, after a period of time, be selected for negotiation and become subject to prices representing a significant discount from average prices to wholesalers and direct purchasers. The IRA also establishes a rebate obligation for drug manufacturers that increase prices of Medicare Part B and Part D covered drugs at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. The inflation rebates may require us to pay rebates if we increased the cost of a covered Medicare Part B or Part D approved product faster than the rate of inflation. In addition, the law eliminates the “donut hole” under Medicare Part D beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to subsidize, through a newly established manufacturer discount program, 10% of Part D enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs below the out-of-pocket maximum and 20% once the out-of-pocket maximum has been reached. Our cost-sharing responsibility for any approved product covered by Medicare Part D could be significantly greater under the newly designed Part D benefit structure compared to the pre-IRA benefit design. Additionally, manufacturers that fail to comply with certain provisions of the IRA may be subject to penalties, including civil monetary penalties. The IRA is anticipated to have significant effects on the pharmaceutical industry and may reduce the prices we can charge and reimbursement we can receive for our products, among other effects. It is unclear how such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA. 37 In addition, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013. This 2% reductions was temporarily suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, but has since been reinstated and, unless Congress and/or the Executive Branch take additional action, will begin to increase gradually starting in April 2030, reaching 4% in April 2031, until sequestration ends in October 2031. Further, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments from providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 also introduced a quality payment program under which certain individual Medicare providers will be subject to certain incentives or penalties based on new program quality standards. In November 2019, CMS issued a final rule finalizing the changes to the Medicare Quality Payment Program. There has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the administration’s proposals. The FDA also released a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, implementing a portion of the importation executive order providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 30, 2020, HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The IRA delayed the implementation of the rule to January 1, 2032. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers; the implementation of these provisions has also been delayed by the IRA until January 1, 2032. In addition, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate price cap, currently set at 100% of the a drug’s average manufacturer price for single source and innovator multiple source products, beginning on January 1, 2024. Further, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order that included multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug price reform. The plan sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions by HHS. No legislative or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. In addition, Congress is considering drug pricing as part of the budget reconciliation process. Additionally, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, mechanisms to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine which drugs and suppliers will be included in their healthcare programs. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices. We expect additional state and federal healthcare reform measures to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressure. 38 Data Privacy and Security Laws Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws, including HIPAA, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act) that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain state and non-U.S. laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Privacy Rights Act and the European General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“GDPR”), govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Privacy and security laws, regulations and other obligations are constantly evolving, and these may conflict with each other which makes compliance efforts more challenging. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in (i) the imposition of significant civil claims; (ii) private litigation; (iii) regulatory investigations and proceedings; (iv) significant penalties imposed by regulators; (v) enforcement notices and restrictions on data processing, requiring us to stop or change the way we use personal information; and (vi) negative publicity, reputational harm and a potential loss of business and goodwill. Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Medicinal Products in the EU In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales, manufacturing and distribution of our product candidates to the extent we choose to sell any of our product candidates outside of the United States. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we or our third-party partners must obtain approval of a product by equivalent competent authorities in foreign jurisdictions before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. As in the United States, post-approval regulatory requirements, such as those regarding product manufacture, marketing, or distribution would apply to any product that is approved outside the United States. The process governing the marketing authorization (“MA”) of medicinal products in the EU entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety, quality and efficacy of the medicinal product for each proposed therapeutic indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of an EU marketing authorization application (“MAA”) and granting of an MA by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the EU. The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which consists of the 27 EU member states, as well as Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Failure to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal, or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties. EU Non-Clinical Studies and Clinical Trials Similar to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls. Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical substances. Non-clinical health and environmental safety studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of GLP, as set forth in Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical health and environmental safety studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements. Until recently, the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP, the Directive 2003/94/EC on GMP and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU member states governed the system for the approval of clinical trials in the EU. As of January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 took effect and replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/556 replaces the GCP Directive 2005/28/EC, and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1569 replaces the GMP Directive 2003/94/EC with respect to investigational medicinal products. Pursuant to transitional provisions under the Regulation, trials may continue to be governed by the national implementations of the Directives until January 31, 2025 if (i) a request for approval was submitted prior to January 31, 2022 or (ii) a request for approval was submitted prior to January 31, 2023 and the sponsor elected to follow the national implementations of the Directives instead of the Regulation. All ongoing clinical trials in the EU will be subject to the requirements of the Regulation after January 31, 2025. The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, the Clinical Trials Information System; a single set of 39 documents to be prepared and submitted for the application, as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is jointly assessed by the competent authorities of all EU member states in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (member states concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each member state concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU member state. However, overall related timelines are defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation. Under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the Clinical Trials Regulation, clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization (“ICH”), guidelines on GCP, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. Under the Clinical Trials Directive, the sponsor was obliged to take out a clinical trial insurance policy and/or maintain an appropriate indemnity or compensation scheme for clinical trial subjects, and in most EU member states, the sponsor was liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial. Similarly, the Clinical Trials Regulation prescribes that member states must implement a scheme providing for compensation for damage caused by participation in clinical trials within their territory in the form of insurance, a guarantee, or a similar arrangement that is equivalent as regards its purpose and which is appropriate to the nature and the extent of the risk. Under the applicable regulatory system, an applicant must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU member states in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific trial site after the competent ethics committee has issued a related favorable opinion. The application for authorization of a clinical trial must be accompanied by, among other documents, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation as prescribed by the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 and the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/556, as applicable, and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or to other information submitted with the clinical trial application must be notified to or approved by the relevant competent national authorities and ethics committees. Medicinal products used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with GMP, including in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1569. EU Marketing Authorizations To obtain an MA for a product in the EU, an applicant must submit an MAA either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EU member states (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). An MA may be granted only to an applicant established in the EU. The centralized procedure comprises a single application, evaluation and authorization and provides for the grant of a single MA by the European Commission that is valid for all EU member states. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) products designated as orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products and (iv) products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. Under the centralized procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”), is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product targeting an unmet medical need is expected to be of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts a request for accelerated assessment, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days (not including clock stops). The CHMP can, however, revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized MA procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each EU member state in which the product is to be marketed. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU member states who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU member state cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potentially serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the Heads of Medicines Agencies’ Coordination Group for Mutual 40 Recognition and Decentralised Procedures—Human for review. If such referral is decided by majority vote, the subsequent decision of the European Commission is binding on all EU member states. The mutual recognition procedure allows companies that have a medicinal product already authorized in one EU member state to apply for this authorization to be recognized by the competent authorities in other EU member states. Like the decentralized procedure, the mutual recognition procedure is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the EU member states of the MA of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other EU member states. The holder of a national MA may submit an application to the competent authority of an EU member state requesting that this authority recognize the MA delivered by the competent authority of another EU member state. In principle, an MA has an initial validity of five years. The MA may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU member state in which the original MA was granted. To support the application, the MA holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the Common Technical Document, providing up-to-date data concerning the quality, safety and efficacy of the product, including all variations introduced since the MA was granted, at least nine months before the MA ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU member states may decide, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five-year renewal period for the MA. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the MA shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization that is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause). Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the Priority Medicines (“PRIME”) scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the United States. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicinal products that show the potential to target unmet medical needs. It permits increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicinal products, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help the product reach patients as early as possible. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation are potentially eligible for accelerated assessment of their MAA although this is not guaranteed. Benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. In the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and must be renewed annually until all related conditions have been fulfilled. Once the specific obligations under the conditional MA are fulfilled (such as the completion of certain ongoing or new trials) and the complete data confirm that the medicinal product’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks, the conditional MA can be converted into a standard MA. However, if the specific obligations are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA, the MA will cease to be renewed. An MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” where the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. These circumstances may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the state of scientific knowledge at that time, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. Like a conditional MA, an MA granted in exceptional circumstances is reserved for medicinal products intended to be authorized for the treatment of rare diseases or unmet medical needs for which the applicant does not hold a complete data set that is required for the grant of a standard MA. While an MA under exceptional circumstances may be subject to an obligation to conduct post-approval studies, unlike the conditional MA, an applicant for authorization in exceptional circumstances is not required to provide the missing data on the medicinal product’s efficacy and safety necessary to convert the conditional MA into a standard MA. Subject to renewal after five years (as with all standard MAs), the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, but the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the MA is withdrawn in case the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable. In addition to an MA, various other requirements apply to the manufacturing and placing on the EU market of medicinal products. Manufacture of medicinal products in the EU requires a manufacturing authorization, and import of medicinal products into the EU requires a manufacturing authorization allowing for import. The manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance. These requirements include compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”), including the manufacture of APIs outside of the EU with the intention to import the APIs into the EU. Similarly, the distribution of medicinal products within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including good distribution practice (“GDP”) standards and the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of the EU member states. MA holders, manufacturing and import authorization (“MIA”) holders or distribution authorization holders may be subject to civil, criminal or administrative sanctions, including suspension of manufacturing authorization, in case of non-compliance with the EU or EU member states’ requirements applicable to the manufacturing of medicinal products. 41 EU Data and Market Exclusivity The EU provides opportunities for data and market exclusivity related to MAs. Upon receiving an MA, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to eight years of data exclusivity and ten years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar product manufacturers from referencing the innovator’s data in generic or biosimilar MAAs for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. In the EU, there is a special regime for biosimilars products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials regarding biosimilarity must be provided in support of an MAA. In April 2023, the European Commission proposed widespread changes to the existing pharmaceutical legislation that would, among other things, alter the data exclusivity periods available to MA holders. The proposed reforms must be reviewed and approval by the EU Parliament and Council, and in light of their controversial nature it is unclear whether they will be adopted as proposed or further revised. EU Post-Approval Requirements Where an MA is granted in relation to a medicinal product in the EU, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of regulatory requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission or the competent regulatory authorities of the individual EU member states. The holder of an MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”). All new MAAs must include a risk management plan describing the risk management system the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety trials. In the EU, the advertising and the promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EU member states’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals or organizations, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. Although these general requirements for the advertising and the promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics (“SmPC”), as approved by the competent authorities in connection with an MA. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EU. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. There is also a prohibition on the offer or supply of inappropriate inducements to prescribe, subject to exemptions in certain jurisdictions, such as benefits that are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine. Proposals to amend EU pharmaceutical laws In April 2023, the EU Commission released proposals to amend the current EU pharmaceutical regulatory framework. The proposals seek to achieve a balance between supporting innovation and increasing the affordability and geographic availability of medicines. The potential reforms include shortening and modulating the periods of regulatory and/or marketing protections available for innovative products, requiring applicants to include environmental impact assessments in MAAs, increasing transparency and disclosure requirements, and restructuring the EMA’s scientific committees. The proposals need to be debated and approved by the EU Parliament and Council before any changes to the current regime will come into effect, if at all. Depending on the progress of the EU parliament, legislative changes are not expected to come into force until 2025 or 2026 at the earliest. It is also expected that there will further transition periods for the new rules once the necessary legislation becomes effective. Japanese Drug Regulation Japan is a member of the ICH, and has pharmaceutical law and regulations that are similar in many respects those of the United States and the EU. Those requirements are embodied in the Act on Securing Quality, Efficacy and Safety of Products Including Pharmaceuticals and 42 Medical Devices (also known as the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act) and related cabinet orders, Ministerial ordinances, and guidelines. Clinical trials of medicinal products in Japan must be conducted in accordance with Japanese regulations and the ICH GCP guidelines. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not an entity within Japan, it must appoint a domestic entity to act as its agent and carry out obligations on the overseas sponsor’s behalf. The sponsor must hold a clinical trial insurance policy, and in accordance with industry practice, should establish a compensation policy for the injuries from the trial. Prior to the commencement of human drug clinical trial, the sponsor must complete a pre-clinical safety evaluation of the investigative product and submit a clinical trial notification, including the clinical trial protocol, to the Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare’s PMDA. This notification must be submitted after obtaining agreement of the IRB in relevant clinical trial institution(s). If the authorities do not raise an issue or comment on the notification application within 30 days, the sponsor may proceed to conclude clinical trial agreement(s) with the site(s) and commence the clinical trial. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted must be cleared by the IRB and notified to the authorities. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with Japan’s cGMPs. Non-clinical studies performed to demonstrate the safety of new chemical or biological substance must be conducted in compliance with the principles of Japanese GLP which reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) requirements. Currently, Japan and EU have a mutual recognition agreement for GLP, and data generated compliant with EU requirements will be accepted by the Japanese authorities. There is no similar agreement with the United States, but this is not a significant issue because of the OECD arrangement. To market an innovative medicinal product in Japan, domestic or overseas applicant must obtain government approval (or marketing authorization) through a new drug application. If the product is designed for treating certain difficult diseases or those for which the patient population is limited and demonstrates unique therapeutic value, the applicant may be able to obtain designation as an orphan drug product. There are also expedited programs for (i) truly innovative products for grave diseases with a unique mechanism of action (provided that development in Japan is concurrent or ahead of other jurisdictions) and (ii) products that satisfy certain unmet medical needs. The evaluation of new drug applications is based on PMDA’s assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. Once PMDA completes its review, the matter is considered by the advisory committee of experts, and the government grants approval upon any positive recommendation from the committee. If foreign data are part of the application, a dose response clinical trial for Japanese subjects may be required to ensure that data can be extrapolated to Japan’s population. Separate from the approval requirement, it is also mandatory that the marketing authorization holder or its partner in Japan possess a drug marketing license. Companies in Japan that actually manufacture drugs must possess a drug manufacturing license, and overseas manufacturers must obtain a manufacturing certification. People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) Drug Regulation China heavily regulates the development, approval, manufacturing, and distribution of drugs, including biologics. For purposes of the below description of drug regulation in China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, which are governed by separate drug laws, are excluded. The regulatory requirements applicable depend, in part, on whether the drug is made and finished in China, which is referred to as a domestically manufactured drug, or made abroad and imported into China in finished form, which is referred to as an imported drug, as well as the approval or “registration” category of the drug. For both imported and domestically manufactured drugs, China requires regulatory approval for a clinical trial application (“CTA”) to conduct clinical trials in China and submit China clinical trial data, prior to submitting an application for marketing approval. For imported drugs, the sponsor and marketing authorization holder must be an overseas company that, if the drug is already approved abroad, holds a marketing authorization in another country. China also prioritizes review and approval of drugs and improvements to drugs (e.g., new indications, routes of administration) that have not yet been approved in any other jurisdiction (i.e., new to the world). In addition, China has created a set of expedited programs for drugs in high priority disease areas and drugs that more effectively treat life-threatening illnesses or that are needed for national emergencies. The framework law in the drug space in China is the PRC Drug Administration Law (“DAL”). The DAL is implemented by various regulations and rules. The primary drug authority that regulates the life cycle of drugs is the NMPA. The NMPA has its own set of regulations, rules and guidelines further implementing the DAL. The rule governing CTAs, marketing approval, and post-approval amendment and renewal is known as the Drug Registration Regulation (“DRR”). NMPA’s Center for Drug Evaluation (“CDE”) approves clinical trials and conducts the technical evaluation of each drug and biologic marketing application to assess safety and efficacy. Provincial-level medical products administrations help to enforce these rules, and issue entity licenses to domestic companies, such as drug manufacturing and distribution licenses. 43 The National Health Commission of the PRC (“NHC”) is China’s primary healthcare regulatory agency. It is responsible for regulating the health care system, including the licensure of medical institutions, which also serve as clinical trial sites, and credentialing of medical personnel. PRC Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the NMPA Among other expedited programs, China administers a Breakthrough Therapy Designation. To qualify, a drug must be new to the world, intended to treat a life-threatening disease or one that can seriously impact quality of life, and for which there is no existing therapy in China or a demonstrated substantial improvement over available therapies. Drugs that are designated as breakthrough therapies will receive priority in meeting scheduling, enhanced guidance from CDE to expedite drug development, and may also qualify for other expedited programs, such as priority review and conditional approval. PRC Non-Clinical Research The NMPA requires preclinical data to support registration applications for imported and domestic drugs. For domestic laboratories, NMPA oversees an accreditation program pursuant to China’s GLP. If the pre-clinical research is conducted outside of China, then the applicant must sign and submit a certification with its CTA and marketing application stating that such research was conducted in accordance with applicable good laboratory practice rules. PRC Clinical Trials and Regulatory Approval Upon completion of preclinical studies, a sponsor will often need to conduct clinical trials in China to support registration. The materials required for a clinical trial application are substantial even at the CTA stage, including detailed manufacturing information. Drug registration trials in China many only be conducted after obtaining approval of a CTA submitted to CDE, approval of the ethics committee at each accredited hospital site, and human genetic resource approval (“HGR”), which is required for the collection of samples and certain associated data. CTAs may be approved in 60 business days if there is no comment from CDE, and the other applications can take approximately 3-4 months each. Prior to consenting subjects, information about clinical trials must be registered on a CDE-administered platform and continually updated during the trial, and certain information, not including the protocol, is made publicly available on the platform. PRC Trial Exemptions and Acceptance of Foreign Data The NMPA may reduce requirements for clinical trials and data, depending on the drug and the existing data. In some cases, NMPA has granted waivers for certain phases of trials and has stated that it will accept data generated abroad (even if not part of a global study with a site in China), including early phase data, that meets its requirements. According to the Technical Guidance Principles on Accepting Foreign Drug Clinical Trial Data the data from foreign clinical trials must meet China’s authenticity, completeness, accuracy, and traceability requirements, and be obtained consistent with the relevant requirements under the China’s Drug GCP. Sponsors must be attentive to potentially meaningful ethnic differences in the subject populations. PRC Clinical Trial Process and Good Clinical Practices Pre-market drug clinical trials may have three phases, which can each require a CTA (unless one CTA covers all three). These clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with a protocol that NMPA, various ethics committees at different sites, and the Ministry of Science and Technology (which grants HGR approvals) all review as part of the aforementioned approvals, and in accordance with applicable drug rules, including China’s Drug GCP, issued jointly by NMPA and NHC. Trials must also be conducted at sites that have received credentials from the NHC and NMPA. China is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”), so its GCP resemble the ICH GCP in a great many respects. However, there are some differences. For example, under China’s GCP the sponsor must provide legal and economic guarantee to the investigator for clinical trial-related injuries, but harm or death caused by medical negligence is excluded. The drug rules contain procedures for amending the clinical trial approval, including obtaining approval for safety-related protocol amendments. NMPA (specifically, its Center for Food and Drug Inspections) has the power to audit trials and sites for GCP compliance during and after the clinical trial. PRC Drug Marketing Application and Approval Upon completion of the development process, the applicant may submit a marketing authorization application to CDE. CDE will organize pharmaceutical, medical, and other technical personnel to conduct a review of the safety, efficacy, and quality controllability of the drug based on the application materials submitted, and the results of a verification and inspection (if required). If NMPA decides to approve the drug based on CDE’s opinion, it will issue a drug registration certificate (i.e., a marketing authorization). A marketing authorization must be renewed every five years. As the marketing authorization holder (“MAH”), a drug company is responsible for the life cycle of the product, including development, production and distribution, post-market trials, routine annual reporting, and safety monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions, among 44 other obligations. The MAH may engage third parties to fulfill some of these obligations, such as appropriately-qualified manufacturers and distributors. If the MAH is overseas, as is required for imported drugs, the MAH must appoint an agent, which must be an entity in China that assists with meeting regulatory obligations. Marketing authorizations can be transferred to entities with the required capacity. Both investigational and marketed drugs must be made in accordance with China GMPs. Domestic manufacturers must have a drug manufacturing license, and overseas manufacturers must certify that they will make drugs in accordance with GMP and meet their home country’s requirements. Drugs must be distributed in China by licensed drug distributors. Competition The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical companies, smaller biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies and generic drug companies. Many of our potential competitors have greater financial and technical human resources than we do, as well as greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products, and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our potential competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining FDA-approved drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Finally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our obicetrapib product candidate, if approved, will be its enhanced LDL-lowering capability as a monotherapy or as a combination therapy, tolerability profile, convenience of oral dosing and availability of reimbursement from governmental and other third-party payors, and effect on other predictors of disease risk. We are currently developing obicetrapib primarily for the treatment of patients at high cardiovascular risk with elevated levels of LDL-C as an adjunct to statins. If approved, obicetrapib would compete with approved non- statin treatments such as ezetimibe, Nexletol/Nexlizet and PCSK9 inhibitors such as Repatha, Praluent and Leqvio. There are also a number of product candidates in clinical development by third parties, such as Amryt Pharma, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, CVI Pharmaceuticals, Innovent Biologics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Matinas BioPharma, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Verve Therapeutics and others, that are intended to treat CVD. Employees and Human Capital Resources As of December 31, 2023, we had 29 employees, consisting of clinical, research and development, business development, regulatory, finance and operational personnel. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. In addition, as of December 31, 2023, we engaged a total of 12 independent contractors. These independent contractors provide a diverse array of services, which includes assisting with our clinical development, manufacturing activities and regulatory obligations. No Works Council or other employee representative body ( personeelsvertegenwoordiging ) is established within the Company, NewAmsterdam Pharma Holding B.V. or NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V. We recognize that our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate exceptional employees is vital to ensuring our long-term competitive advantage. Our employees are critical to our long-term success and are essential to helping us meet our goals. Among other things, we support and incentivize our employees in the following ways: • Talent development, compensation and retention : We strive to provide our employees with a rewarding work environment, including the opportunity for growth, success and professional development. We provide a competitive compensation and benefits package, including bonus and equity incentive plans and a 401(k) plan for US employees—all designed to attract and retain a skilled and diverse workforce. • Health and safety : We support the health and safety of our employees by providing comprehensive insurance benefits, company-paid holidays, a personal time-off program and other additional benefits which are intended to assist employees to manage their well-being. • Inclusion and diversity : We are committed to efforts to increase diversity and foster an inclusive work environment that supports our workforce. Corporate Information Our legal and commercial name is NewAmsterdam Pharma Company N.V. We were incorporated as a private company with limited liability ( besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid ) under the laws of the Netherlands on June 10, 2022, solely for the purpose of effectuating the Business Combination. As part of the Business Combination, we converted our legal form to a public limited liability company ( naamloze vennootschap ) under the laws of the Netherlands on November 21, 2022. The Company is registered with the Dutch Trade Register under number 86649051. The address of our registered office is Gooimeer 2-35 1411 DC Naarden, the Netherlands and the telephone number of the Company is +31 (0) 35 206 2971. Our agent in the United States is our subsidiary, NewAmsterdam Pharma Corporation. NewAmsterdam Pharma Corporation’s address is 20803 Biscayne Blvd, Suite #105, Aventura, Florida. 45 On November 22, 2022 (the “Closing Date”), we consummated a business combination pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement, dated as of July 25, 2022 (the “Business Combination Agreement”), by and among the Company, Frazier Lifesciences Acquisition Corporation, a Cayman Islands exempted company (“FLAC”), NewAmsterdam Pharma, and NewAmsterdam Pharma Investment Corporation, a Cayman Islands exempted company and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Merger Sub”). Beginning on the day immediately prior to the Closing Date and finishing on the day immediately after the Closing Date, the following transactions occurred pursuant to the terms of the Business Combination Agreement (collectively, the “Business Combination”): • The shareholders of NewAmsterdam Pharma (“Participating Shareholders”) contributed all outstanding shares in the capital of NewAmsterdam Pharma to the Company in exchange for the issuance of ordinary shares, nominal value €0.12 per share (the “Ordinary Shares”), in the share capital of the Company (the “Exchange”); • Immediately after giving effect to the Exchange, the Company’s legal form was converted from a Dutch private company with limited liability ( besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid ) to a Dutch public limited liability company ( naamloze vennootschap ); • After giving effect to the Exchange, Merger Sub merged with and into FLAC (the “Merger”), with FLAC surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company; • In connection with the Merger, each issued and outstanding ordinary share of FLAC was canceled and extinguished in exchange for a claim for an Ordinary Share, and such claim was then contributed into the Company against the issuance of a corresponding Ordinary Share; • Immediately following the Merger, each outstanding warrant to purchase a Class A ordinary share, par value $0.0001 per share, of FLAC became a warrant to purchase one Ordinary Share, on the same contractual terms; • Each NewAmsterdam Pharma option that was outstanding and unexercised (“NewAmsterdam Pharma Options”) remained outstanding, and to the extent unvested, such option will continue to vest in accordance with its applicable terms, and at the time of the Exchange, such NewAmsterdam Pharma Options became options to purchase, and will when exercised be settled in Ordinary Shares; and • On the day following the Closing Date, FLAC changed its jurisdiction of incorporation by deregistering as a Cayman Islands exempted company and domesticated as a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Domestication”). Upon the achievement of a certain clinical development milestone, we will issue to the Participating Shareholders (including Saga Investments Coöperatief U.A. (“Amgen”), an affiliate of Amgen, Inc., and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (“MTPC”) for this purpose) and holders of NewAmsterdam Pharma Options prior to the closing of the Business Combination, who were directors, officers, employees or consultants of NewAmsterdam Pharma as of the date of the Business Combination Agreement and who are at the time of achievement of such milestone providing services to the Company or its subsidiaries (the “Participating Optionholders”), 1,886,137 additional Ordinary Shares (the “Earnout Shares”), which in the case of the Participating Optionholders will take the form of awards of restricted stock units under the LTIP. As of December 31, 2023, 1,743,135 Earnout Shares and 143,002 Earnout Shares were allocated to Participating Shareholders and Participating Optionholders, respectively. The development milestone consists of the achievement and public announcement of Positive Phase 3 Data (as defined in the Business Combination Agreement) for each of NewAmsterdam Pharma’s BROADWAY clinical trial and BROOKLYN clinical trial at any time during the period beginning on the date immediately prior to the Closing Date and ending on the date that is five years after the date immediately after the Closing Date, or November 23, 2027. As a result, no Earnout Shares will be issuable if the applicable milestone is not achieved within five years of the of the Closing Date. Prior to the Business Combination, we did not conduct any material activities other than those incident to our formation and certain matters related to the Business Combination, such as the making of certain required securities law filings. Upon the closing of the Business Combination, NewAmsterdam Pharma became our direct, wholly owned subsidiary, and holds all of our material assets and conducts all of our business activities and operations. Available Information Our website address is www.newamsterdampharma.com . Our website and information included in or linked to our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We file reports with the SEC, which we make available on our website free of charge. These reports include annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports, each of which is provided on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with or furnish them to the SEC. Our website also includes our Annual Report on Form 20-F and information furnished on Form 6-K filed while we were a foreign private issuer. In addition, the SEC maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers, like us, that file electronically with the SEC. 46