Item 1. Business
Item 1. Business.
Overview
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of next generation targeted therapies for women’s cancers. Our team has spent the past decade characterizing the structure and function of the estrogen receptor, or ER, a key driver of breast cancer in approximately 75% of patients, in order to develop more potent, oral therapies that completely inactivate this signaling pathway. Our lead product candidate, OP-1250, is a novel oral therapy with combined activity as both a complete ER antagonist, or CERAN, and a selective ER degrader, or SERD, which we believe will drive deeper, more durable responses than existing therapies. OP-1250, both as a monotherapy and in combination with inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6, or CDK4/6, demonstrated robust tumor shrinkage in several xenograft models, including a breast cancer brain metastasis model. In August 2020, we initiated an ongoing Phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial evaluating OP-1250 for the treatment of recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic ER-positive, or ER+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, or HER2-, breast cancer, and expect to report initial data from this trial in the second half of 2021. We own worldwide development and commercialization rights to OP- 1250. We believe OP-1250’s oral formulation and dual mechanism of action directly address the limitations of current endocrine therapies, such as fulvestrant and tamoxifen, and position OP-1250 as a potential endocrine therapy of choice for the treatment of ER+ breast cancers. Our goal is to transform the standard of care for women living with cancers by developing more effective therapies that apply our deep understanding and collective expertise in endocrine-driven cancers, nuclear receptor activities and mechanisms of acquired resistance.
We are initially focused on developing therapies for the treatment of breast cancer, which represents approximately 30% of all new diagnoses of women’s cancer. In 2020, the American Cancer Society, or ACS, estimated there would be approximately 276,000 new cases of female breast cancer and over 42,000 deaths from metastatic breast cancer in the United States. Treatment decisions are based on a combination of individual patient characteristics and tumor biology, most importantly the expression of three proteins: ER, progesterone receptor, or PR, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, or HER2. Approximately 75% of all breast cancers are ER+, and approximately 65% are ER+/HER2- highlighting the central role of the ER in driving a large majority of breast cancer. Approximately 6-10% of breast cancer patients present with metastatic disease at diagnosis and a further 20-30% of patients initially diagnosed with early-stage disease ultimately develop metastatic disease. The current five-year survival rate for patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer is approximately 30%. In 2019, worldwide sales for endocrine and targeted therapies treating ER+ breast cancer patients totaled $9.6 billion.
The ER is a nuclear receptor that functions as a ligand regulated transcription factor. When bound to estrogen, the ER directs the expression of genes that are essential for breast cancer cells’ survival and proliferation. For more than four decades, researchers have been developing new approaches and therapies to prevent activation of the ER pathway, thereby inhibiting the ability of the ER to drive tumor cell growth. In 1977, the first endocrine therapeutic, the anti-estrogen tamoxifen, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for the treatment of breast cancer. Tamoxifen is still commonly used today but is challenged by the development of acquired drug resistance, which in some cases may be due to its partial agonist activity. In search for a different mechanism to target the estrogen pathway, aromatase inhibitors, or AIs, were developed in the 1990s to block the synthesis of estrogen and deprive the ER+ cells of its activating ligand. However, up to 50% of patients taking AIs develop arthralgia, leading to suspension of treatment in up to 15% of patients. Additionally, most patients with metastatic breast cancer have been shown to ultimately develop resistance to AIs. These agents are also not used to treat pre-menopausal women without the addition of ovarian suppression.
7
Table of Contents
In 2002, fulvestrant was approved as a treatment for hormone receptor positive, or HR+, metastatic breast cancer patients and is typically used as a second- or third-line endocrine agent. Fulvestrant was designed to be a CERAN, and later discovered to also be a SERD, and represented a breakthrough for the field with improved outcomes for patients whose disease had progressed on prior endocrine therapy. However, fulvestrant has several limitations including its suboptimal drug exposure and route of administration as a monthly intramuscular injection. Despite these drawbacks, fulvestrant achieved worldwide sales of over $1.1 billion in 2019.
More recently, the field has focused on the discovery and development of oral agents that have fulvestrant’s dual mechanism of action to completely inactivate and degrade the ER. Some of these oral SERD agents are CERANs, such as OP-1250, but others have partial agonist activity despite being SERDs and thus are not CERANs. SERDs reduce the levels of the ER but they do not entirely eliminate it. Consequently, SERDs are not necessarily CERANs. Notably, estrogen itself leads to ER degradation.
We designed our lead product candidate, OP-1250, based both on a detailed structural understanding of the ER and on known alterations to this structure induced by fulvestrant and other ligands. We have demonstrated in nonclinical studies that OP-1250 functions both as a CERAN and a SERD, but is distinguished from fulvestrant in several noteworthy ways, including:
● OP-1250 is orally bioavailable while fulvestrant is a highly insoluble compound that must be administered monthly by intramuscular injection into the buttocks;
● OP-1250 has favorable biodistribution properties leading to higher drug concentrations in the plasma and tumor than those achieved with fulvestrant, as shown in a head-to-head mouse xenograft study; and
● OP-1250 has demonstrated the ability to shrink tumors in head-to-head nonclinical studies with fulvestrant, in contrast to fulvestrant, which has only been shown to inhibit tumor growth.
Based on these nonclinical differences, we believe that OP-1250 has the potential to demonstrate clinical outcomes superior to fulvestrant. Furthermore, OP-1250 has the potential to benefit patients with metastatic breast cancer, initially for patients who have previously received endocrine therapy, as well as those who are treatment naïve in the metastatic setting, and advance into the adjuvant setting for early-stage ER+ breast cancer. In multiple nonclinical animal models of anti-cancer activity, including patient-derived xenografts with tumors containing activating mutations in the ER, OP-1250 monotherapy led to tumor shrinkage or in some cases tumor eradication, as well as long-term post-treatment survival. In each of these nonclinical models, the effect of OP-1250 was superior to that of fulvestrant, an effect which we determined was driven both by improved pharmacokinetic, or PK, properties, and higher plasma and tumor drug concentrations. In nonclinical studies, OP- 1250 demonstrated robust central nervous system, or CNS, penetration, and in an intracranial breast cancer brain metastases xenograft study, OP-1250 demonstrated the ability to shrink tumors and improve survival in mice. OP-1250 has the potential to address a critical unmet need as 10-15% of ER+ breast cancer patients develop brain metastases for which there are currently limited treatment options.
8
Table of Contents
As summarized in the figure below, our plan is to develop our wholly owned lead product candidate, OP-1250, in a number of ER+ breast cancer indications, both as a monotherapy and in combination with approved targeted therapies that have shown improved outcomes with other endocrine therapies.
In August 2020, we initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of OP-1250 in patients with recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer whose disease has progressed on endocrine therapy. Phase 1 consists of monotherapy dose escalation to evaluate the safety and PK of OP-1250 and to determine the maximum tolerated dose, or MTD, and/or the recommended Phase 2 dose, or RP2D. The expansion phase will enroll patients at the RP2D in order to explore preliminary efficacy in selected patient populations. The first cohort of the expansion phase consists of women and men with recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed on prior endocrine therapy. A second cohort is exploratory and will enroll individuals with metastatic breast cancer who have brain metastases. Enrollment in the Phase 1 dose-escalation phase of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial continues on track and we expect to report initial data from the Phase 1 portion of the trial in the second half of 2021. Preliminary PK data from the first dose cohort is consistent with nonclinical modeling of our Phase 1 starting dose. We expect to report initial data from the Phase 1 portion of the trial in the second half of 2021. In addition, we plan to explore the potential clinical benefit of OP-1250 in combination with other approved agents for breast cancer, such as inhibitors of CDK4/6 and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase alpha, or PI3Kα, which have been shown to lead to improvements in both progression-free and overall survival. In July 2020, we entered into a non-exclusive agreement with Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Inc., or Novartis, to evaluate the combination of OP-1250 and Novartis’ KISQALI® (ribociclib), a CDK4/6 inhibitor, as well as PIQRAY® (alpelisib), their PI3Kα inhibitor. Under the terms of the collaboration, Novartis will be responsible for funding a capped majority of the costs for the Phase 1b clinical trial, as well as supplying their drugs. In November 2020, we entered into a non-exclusive clinical trial agreement with Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, to evaluate the safety and tolerability of OP-1250 in combination with Pfizer’s proprietary CDK4/6 inhibitor IBRANCE® (palbociclib) in patients with recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic ER+, HER2- breast cancer in a clinical trial. Under the terms of the non-exclusive agreement, we will be responsible for conducting the clinical trial for the combined therapy and Pfizer is responsible for supplying IBRANCE® (palbociclib) to us at no cost to us.
9
Table of Contents
Our Strategy
Our goal is to discover, develop and commercialize next generation targeted therapies for women’s cancers. The key elements of our business strategy to achieve this goal include:
● Applying our deep understanding of nuclear receptors — particularly the ER — and mechanisms of resistance to develop novel therapeutic approaches for endocrine-driven cancers. Our team has spent over a decade characterizing the structure and function of the ER and its role in driving tumor cell proliferation in HR+ breast cancer. Our knowledge of the ER’s functional domains combined with our medicinal chemistry expertise has allowed us to develop a potent and oral compound that both completely inactivates and strongly promotes degradation of the ER in nonclinical studies. We believe OP-1250’s oral formulation and dual mechanism of action as a CERAN/SERD directly address the limitations of current endocrine therapies, such as fulvestrant and tamoxifen, and has the potential to drive deeper, more durable responses.
● Rapidly advancing our lead product candidate, OP-1250, through clinical development as a monotherapy for ER+/HER2- breast cancer. We are currently evaluating OP-1250 monotherapy in a Phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion clinical trial in patients with recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer whose disease has progressed on endocrine therapy. We expect to report initial data from this trial in the second half of 2021. After examining safety and PK as well as determining the RP2D, we intend to advance OP-1250 into Phase 2 dose expansion cohorts, and to study OP-1250 in patients with earlier stage disease. We also plan to study OP-1250 in selected breast cancer populations, including pre-menopausal women and patients with mutations in the estrogen-binding domain of ESR1, the gene that encodes the ER.
● Establishing OP-1250 as the endocrine therapy of choice with targeted therapy combinations for the treatment of metastatic ER+ breast cancers. We believe OP-1250’s differentiated product profile has the potential to overcome many of the limitations of current treatment options. We plan to explore the potential clinical benefit of OP-1250 in combination with other approved agents for breast cancer, such as inhibitors of CDK4/6 and PI3Kα, which have been shown to lead to improvements in both progression-free and overall survival. At low concentrations in nonclinical models, OP-1250 worked in combination with inhibitors of CDK4/6 and PI3Kα. In July 2020, we entered into a non-exclusive agreement with Novartis to evaluate the combination of OP-1250 and KISQALI® (ribociclib), a CDK4/6 inhibitor as well as PIQRAY® (alpelisib), a PI3Kα inhibitor. In November 2020, we entered into a non-exclusive agreement with Pfizer to evaluate OP-1250 in combination with IBRANCE®, a selective CDK4/6 inhibitor. Our goal is to successfully demonstrate improved efficacy and a favorable tolerability profile in combination with other targeted therapies in order to position OP-1250 as the endocrine therapy of choice.
10
Table of Contents
● Exploring additional clinical opportunities for OP-1250, including metastatic breast cancer with brain metastases and other hormone sensitive tumors. Metastatic breast cancer is the second most common cancer associated with brain metastases in the United States. Of women with ER+ metastatic breast cancer, 10-15% will develop brain metastases, which present a significant challenge to systemic therapy. The primary treatment for CNS metastases is typically surgery, radiation, or a combination of both and these patients tend to have a poor prognosis. In nonclinical studies, OP-1250 demonstrated robust CNS penetration, and in an intracranial breast cancer brain metastases xenograft study, OP-1250 demonstrated the ability to shrink tumors and improve survival in mice. In addition, combining OP-1250 with HER2 targeted agents may represent an opportunity to improve upon recent advancements in the treatment of CNS disease in patients that express both ER and HER2, as up to 50% of patients with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer develop CNS disease, and the majority of patients with HER2+ breast cancer also express ER. In addition to breast cancer, we intend to explore the use of OP-1250 in various gynecological malignancies, beginning with endometrial cancer. Approximately 80% of endometrial tumors are “endometriod” in nature and these tumors are driven by estrogen.
● Continuing to evaluate opportunities to accelerate development timelines and enhance the commercial potential of our programs in collaboration with third parties. We own full worldwide development and commercialization rights to OP-1250. We have established a clinical collaboration with Novartis and intend to continue evaluating opportunities to work with partners that meaningfully enhance our capabilities with respect to the development and commercialization of OP-1250. In addition, we intend to commercialize our product candidates in key markets either alone or with partners in order to maximize the worldwide commercial potential of our programs.
● Expanding our portfolio of therapies focused on women’s oncology through both internal research activities and business development efforts. We are applying our internal drug discovery capabilities to identify and evaluate novel targeted therapies that can improve the lives of women with cancer. We will continue to explore opportunities to acquire products and technologies that align with our core areas of expertise and complement our existing portfolio.
Our Opportunity
Epidemiology and classification of breast cancer
Breast cancer is the second-most common cancer worldwide, with nearly 2 million new diagnoses per year. In 2020, the ACS estimates there will be approximately 276,000 new cases of female breast cancer and over 42,000 deaths in the United States, making it the second-leading cause of cancer death in women. Approximately 2,500 men are also diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the United States. Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease which is grouped into several clinical subtypes based on the expression of three proteins: ER, PR and HER2. Both ER and PR are hormone receptors, and tumors that express either of these receptors are referred to as HR+. It is unusual for a tumor to express PR in the absence of the ER, therefore most tumors are referred to as either ER+ or ER-. Tumors that express HER2 are denoted HER2+, and tumors that do not express ER, PR or HER2 are classified as triple negative breast cancer. Approximately 75% of all breast cancers are ER+, and approximately 65% are ER+/HER2-, highlighting the central role of ER signaling in driving a large majority of breast cancer. The percentage breakdown of all breast cancers by subtype are shown in the Figure 1.
11
Table of Contents
Figure 1. Types of breast cancer
Treating breast cancer
Early-stage breast cancer
Breast cancer stage is determined by the size of the tumor and whether or not the cancer has spread to lymph nodes. A tumor that is confined to the breast with or without the involvement of local, ipsilateral lymph nodes is considered early-stage breast cancer. Treatment for patients with early-stage breast cancer involves two components. First, there is local treatment of the breast, chest wall and local lymph nodes, if any, with surgery, either a lumpectomy or mastectomy, and potentially radiation. Second, based on the biology and characteristics of the tumor, patients may also be offered systemic therapy, referred to as adjuvant therapy, in order to decrease the risk of recurrence of breast cancer anywhere in the body. Systemic therapy can be given either after surgery (adjuvant) or prior to surgery (neoadjuvant) or a combination of both.
The initial standard of care for patients with early-stage ER+ breast cancer is at least five years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. The endocrine treatment options for early-stage disease are AIs, such as anastrozole, exemestane or letrozole, or an ER antagonist such as a tamoxifen. For patients diagnosed with early-stage ER+ breast cancer who undergo surgical and adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment, the five-year survival rate is over 90%.
Metastatic breast cancer
When cancer has spread beyond local lymph nodes, either to distant lymph nodes, bones or visceral organs, the cancer is now considered metastatic. Approximately 6-10% of breast cancer patients present with de novo metastatic disease, also referred to as stage IV disease, at initial diagnosis. In addition, approximately 20-30% of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer will develop metastatic disease. In contrast to the goals of adjuvant therapy, treatments for metastatic disease are palliative with the desired outcome of controlling symptoms and extending survival as long as possible. The current five-year survival rate for patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer is approximately 30%.
While there are national guidelines and recommendations for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, the actual treatment decision is based on a combination of individual patient characteristics and tumor biology, including whether they received adjuvant therapy and if so, how quickly the cancer recurred. There is significant overlap in the agents that are recommended, but guidelines vary in the sequence in which these agents are used. In the past five years, several new classes of targeted therapies have been approved to be used in combination with endocrine agents for the treatment of HR+/HER2- breast cancer. Inhibitors of CDK4/6, such as palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib, used in combination with an AI or fulvestrant, led to significant increases in progression- free survival and overall survival. Alpelisib, a PI3Kα inhibitor, was approved in 2019
12
Table of Contents
in combination with fulvestrant for the treatment of HR+/HER2- breast cancers that have mutations in PIK3CA. Figure 2 shows the endocrine treatment options available for ER+ metastatic breast cancer, and an example of the sequence of treatments, by agent and line of therapy.
Figure 2. Available endocrine options and example of sequential alternating of endocrine
based therapy in ER+ metastatic breast cancer
When moving a patient from one line of therapy to the next, the standard of care is to switch to an endocrine agent with a different mechanism of action depending upon last therapy, co-morbidities, and individual patient characteristics.
Metastatic breast cancer is the second most common cancer associated with brain metastases in the United States. About 10-15% of women with metastatic breast cancer develop brain metastases. Brain metastases present a significant challenge to systemic therapy, and the primary treatment for CNS metastases is typically surgical resection, radiation, or a combination of both. Given the limited treatment options available for these patients, the prognosis remains poor, making it an area of continued, high unmet medical need. In addition, brain metastases in breast cancer patients are a major cause of morbidity, associated with progressive neurologic deficits that result in a reduced quality of life.
ER signaling in cancer
The ER is a nuclear receptor that functions as a ligand regulated transcription factor. When bound to estrogen, the ER directs the expression of genes that are essential for breast cancer cells’ survival and proliferation. The ER has three modular functional domains:
● The amino terminal domain, which contains the activation function 1, or AF1, the activity of which can be increased by multiple cell proliferative signaling pathways;
● The DNA binding domain, which directs the ER to bind to a specific set of ER-responsive genes; and
● The ligand binding domain, which contains the activation function 2, or AF2, which is turned on when bound to estrogen.
13
Table of Contents
Activation of either AF1 or AF2 can drive transcription and cancer cell proliferation.
Figure 3. ER is a tripartite protein with two distinct transcription factor activation domains,
AF1 and AF2
Classes of endocrine therapies and their limitations
For more than four decades, researchers have been developing new approaches and therapies to prevent activation of the ER pathway, thereby inhibiting the ability of the ER to drive tumor cell growth. Figure 4 describes the two major classes of endocrine therapies, AIs and ER antagonists. In 2019, worldwide sales for endocrine and targeted therapies treating ER+ breast cancer patients totaled $9.6 billion.
Figure 4. Classes of endocrine therapies
Antagonists with partial agonist activity
In 1977, the first endocrine therapeutic, tamoxifen, was approved by the FDA for the treatment of breast cancer. Although tamoxifen directly competes with estrogen and prevents activation of the AF2 transcription factor activation domain, it does not block AF1 activity and therefore does not completely inhibit ER function (Figure 5). As a consequence of this partial agonist activity, tamoxifen mimics estrogen in some circumstances and promotes proliferation. In addition, some breast cancers can develop resistance to these partial agonists by activation of upstream AF1 signaling pathways, such as mTOR, PI3K, MAPK, c-SRC, EGFR, FGFR and IGFR. Therefore, while tamoxifen is commonly used today, it is challenged by acquired drug resistance and a relatively short duration of response.
14
Table of Contents
Figure 5. Partial agonists, such as tamoxifen, are unable to completely block ER activation
In search for a different mechanism to target the estrogen pathway, AIs were developed in the 1990s to block the synthesis of estrogen and deprive the ER+ tumor of its activating ligand. However, most patients with metastatic breast cancer have been shown to ultimately develop resistance to these therapies. Similar to tamoxifen, resistance to AIs, such as anastrozole, exemestane or letrozole, can develop by multiple mechanisms, including activation of the AF1 pathway and development of mutations. Mutations in ESR1 that confer estrogen-independent ER activity arise in 30-40% of patients receiving AI treatment.
SERDs
In the search for more potent ER antagonists, researchers focused on another class of ER drugs that were described as SERDs. This classification arose from the observation that certain ligands bind tightly to ER leading to ER degradation. The field shifted drug discovery efforts to SERDs based on the hypothesis that degrading ER would be more efficacious than inhibiting it. However, similar to tamoxifen, many compounds with SERD activity are not complete ER antagonists nor do they achieve complete degradation of the ER. Recent experiments conducted by us and third parties in nonclinical models of breast cancer suggest that ER degradation, as achieved by many SERDs, on its own is not sufficient to effectively treat tumors and that the ability to completely inhibit ER function is best achieved through complete antagonism.
CERANs
A CERAN is a molecule that completely blocks the ability of both AF1 and AF2 to stimulate gene transcription (Figure 6). CERANs inhibit activation of the AF2 transcription factor activation domain and inactivate AF1 activity by recruiting nuclear receptor corepressors of the N-CoR/SMRT family. Previous work by one of our co-founders identified specific interactions between fulvestrant-bound ER and N-CoR and that the strength of these interactions correlated with the ability of fulvestrant-bound ER to inactivate gene transcription through the transcription factor activating domain, AF1.
15
Table of Contents
Figure 6. CERANs block AF1 and AF2 activity inhibiting cell proliferation
In 2002, fulvestrant was approved as a treatment for HR+ metastatic breast cancer and is typically used as a second- or third-line endocrine agent. Fulvestrant represented a breakthrough for the field based on its dual- mechanism of action as a CERAN and SERD which led to improved efficacy outcomes for patients. However, fulvestrant, the only FDA-approved anti-estrogen lacking agonist-type effects in in vivo uterotropic assays in immature or ovariectomized mice and rats, has several limitations including:
● Painful and inconvenient route of administration. Fulvestrant is a highly insoluble compound with poor oral bioavailability and therefore must be given intramuscularly. Fulvestrant is administered every 28-days in two 5 ml intramuscular injections into the buttocks. Injection site reactions occur in approximately 10% of patients and include sciatica, neuralgia, neuropathic pain, and peripheral neuropathy.
● Suboptimal drug exposure limits efficacy. In a nonclinical mouse model, an increase in antitumor activity and ER degradation was observed as the dose of fulvestrant was increased from 25 mg/kg to 200 mg/kg. However, researchers estimated that achieving an equivalent level of fulvestrant in humans to a 200 mg/kg dose in mice would require a dose that is eight times higher than is currently clinically achievable. Furthermore, xenograft models created using patient-derived tumors containing ESR1 mutations show that even plasma levels substantially higher than those achievable in humans at the approved dose fail to demonstrate optimal antitumor effect.
Our Product Candidate
We own worldwide development and commercialization rights to OP-1250. Our plan is to develop OP-1250 for the treatment of a number of ER+ breast cancer indications, both as a monotherapy and in combination with approved targeted therapies that have shown improved outcomes with other endocrine therapies.
Our solution, OP-1250
OP-1250 is an oral small molecule clinical-stage product candidate for the treatment of endocrine-driven cancers. OP-1250 was designed by our scientific team based both on a detailed structural understanding of the ER and on known alterations to this structure induced by fulvestrant and other ER ligands. We have demonstrated in nonclinical studies that OP-1250 functions both as a CERAN, inactivating both AF1 and AF2
16
Table of Contents
transcriptional activation functions, and a SERD, promoting degradation of the ER. In several xenograft models, OP-1250, both as a monotherapy and in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors demonstrated robust tumor shrinkage, including a breast cancer brain metastasis model. Enrollment in the Phase 1 dose-escalation phase of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial continues on track and we expect to report initial data from the Phase 1 portion of the trial in the second half of 2021. Preliminary PK data from the first dose cohort is consistent with nonclinical modeling of our Phase 1 starting dose. We believe OP-1250’s oral formulation and dual mechanism of action directly address the limitations of current endocrine therapies, such as fulvestrant and tamoxifen, and position OP-1250 as a potential endocrine therapy of choice for the treatment of ER+ breast cancers.
Nonclinical data
Potent anti-proliferative activity
In nonclinical studies, we found that OP-1250 was a potent inhibitor of proliferation and a strong degrader of the ER in multiple breast cancer cell lines. In a cell proliferation assay using CAMA-1 cells, a human breast cancer line that is partially resistant to tamoxifen, administration of OP-1250 led to concentration-dependent anti- proliferative activity with a half maximal inhibitory concentration, or IC50, of 3.1 nM. The IC50 is the concentration of OP-1250 resulting in inhibiting estrogen-stimulated proliferation by 50%. We observed a similar potency in this cell line for fulvestrant. Endoxifen, a key active metabolite of tamoxifen, had a weaker potency in this assay, requiring a concentration of 24.3 nM to achieve an IC50.
Figure 7. OP-1250 inhibits the proliferation of CAMA-1 cells
In vitro cell proliferation experiment measuring DNA content after 8-day treatment of CAMA-1 breast cancer cells with ligands in the presence of 100 pM 17β- estradiol, or E2. Shown in the left side dose response graph of Figure 7 are mean values normalized to vehicle, or +E2, along with error bars representing the standard error of the mean, or SEM, from triplicate wells. Residual response to estrogen due to incomplete antagonism is the amount of proliferation remaining at saturating drug concentration relative to the proliferation seen in the absence of estrogen. Shown in the right side table of Figure 7 is mean percent residual proliferative response to estrogen calculated over multiple experiments after normalizing to +E2 (100%) and -E2 (0%) for endoxifen and some SERDs with incomplete antagonism, ARN-810, AZD9496, RAD1901, and the CERANS OP-1250 and fulvestrant.
17
Table of Contents
Complete ER antagonism
A key distinguishing feature of CERANs is that they completely lack any agonistic estrogen-like effects, and completely block the effects of estrogen. A nonclinical model often used to assess the residual agonistic effect of ER antagonists is the ovariectomized mouse uterine weight model. In this model, removal of the ovaries eliminates the primary source of estrogen in the mouse and limits the development of uterine tissue. As shown in this head-to-head comparison study, dosing of these mice with estrogen leads to an increase in the weight of uterine tissue. Administration of tamoxifen in the absence of estrogen also results in an increase in uterine weight, illustrating that tamoxifen possesses some agonistic activity on ER in certain biological contexts. Furthermore, tamoxifen is unable to block the effect of estrogen in this model. Neither OP-1250 nor fulvestrant led to an increase in uterine weight in the absence of estrogen and both suppressed the stimulatory activity of estrogen, illustrating that OP-1250 and fulvestrant are CERANs.
Figure 8. OP-1250 and fulvestrant, both CERANs, lacked any ER agonistic activity and
completely blocked ER activation by estrogen in an ovariectomized mouse uterine weight
head-to-head comparison model
SERD activity
SERDs are ER ligands that lead to partial degradation of the ER. This degradation takes place within four hours after exposure of cells to the SERD, indicating that it comes from destabilization of the ER protein. In a nonclinical analysis, we have tested the ability of OP-1250, fulvestrant and several non-CERAN SERDs (specifically, RAD1901, ARN-810, AZD9496) to degrade ER across seven different cell lines. As shown in Figure 9, after treatment of these cell lines for four hours, there was a dramatic difference in the effect on ER destabilization. Endoxifen, the active metabolite of tamoxifen, had virtually no effect and RAD1901, ARN-810 and AZD9496 degraded the ER to some degree in several of the cell lines. In contrast, fulvestrant and OP-1250 profoundly degraded the ER in each one of the cell lines, and the level of ER degradation for the cell lines treated with OP-1250 was consistent with that of fulvestrant.
18
Table of Contents
Figure 9. OP-1250 degrades ER similarly to fulvestrant in seven tested cell lines.
ERα protein levels were measured by western blot following treatment with indicated compound in a panel of six ER+ breast cancer cell lines (CAMA-1, BT-474, MCF-7, T47D, SUM44, HCC1500) and one ER+ endometrial cancer cell line. ERα protein levels by culturing breast cancer cell lines with 316 nM ligand in E2-depleted media for 4 hours. Protein lysates were immunoblotted with an antibody to ERα. Shown are mean ERα protein levels normalized to vehicle, and SEM from triplicate wells.
Potent antagonist activity on both wild-type and mutant ER
Treatment of breast cancers with AI therapy has been shown to lead to the development of resistance mutations in the ESR1 gene. These mutations are acquired during treatment and are found in less than 2% of untreated early- stage breast tumors but in 30-40% of metastatic tumors after treatment with AIs. More than 80% of mutations are found at three locations corresponding to amino acid residues 380, 537 and 538.
These mutations result in resistance to many estrogen therapies. We assessed the ability of estrogen compounds to inhibit ER-dependent transcription in cell lines containing ER alleles with mutations that have been found in patients. We used alkaline phosphatase, which is encoded by a gene activated by the ER primarily through the AF1 transcriptional activation function and has an enzymatic activity that can be readily measured in cells, as a surrogate for ER driven target gene transcription. We tested two clinical stage SERD compounds: ARN-810, also known as GDC-0810, a discontinued compound previously in Phase 2 clinical development by Genentech; and AZD9496, an AstraZeneca compound that has presented Phase 1 data. Both compounds were unable to fully inhibit the activity of the mutant ER. At the highest concentrations tested of approximately 1 μM, these compounds were unable to fully inhibit the alkaline phosphatase activity stimulated by the D538G mutation and had no activity in cells containing the Y537S mutation. In contrast, both OP-1250 and fulvestrant were able to fully inhibit the alkaline phosphatase activity in cells containing these mutations.
19
Table of Contents
These observations suggest that tumors that become resistant to other estrogen therapies may remain sensitive to OP-1250.
Figure 10. Both OP-1250 and fulvestrant inhibit the activity of the ER containing mutations
that commonly arise in breast cancer patients treated with other antiestrogen therapies.
In vitro alkaline phosphatase, or AP, activity mediated by Y537S and D538G mutant ERα in an endometrial cell line. AP activity was assayed by treating transiently transfected Ishikawa cells with ligands in E2-depleted media for 3 days. Absorbance was read after incubation with a chromogenic substrate for AP. Shown are mean values normalized to vehicle, along with SEM from triplicate wells. The line labeled “endogenous” represents the mean AP activity of cells transfected with an empty vector, indicating the AP activity of the endogenous receptor. ARN-810, also known as GDC-0810, has been discontinued by Genentech.
Orally available, once daily dose
In animal studies, OP-1250 has demonstrated high oral availability with favorable exposure in four model species: mouse, rat, dog, and cynomolgus monkey; with a half-life supportive of once daily dosing in humans. Repeat daily dosing in these studies demonstrated that at steady-state the plasma levels of OP-1250 were relatively constant through the entire 24-hour period with little peak to trough variation. We believe that oral dosing of OP-1250 has the potential to achieve much higher drug levels as compared to fulvestrant administration which requires two intramuscular injections every four weeks. The profile of OP-1250 is consistent with daily oral dosing in humans and we believe that we will be able to achieve targeted drug exposure levels with a once daily dose.
20
Table of Contents
Figure 11. Steady state drug levels of OP-1250 following once daily dosing showed high
plasma levels throughout the entire day
OP-1250 was dosed daily orally by gavage in the mouse rat and dog. After multi-day dosing, plasma levels were measured over the 24 hours following the last dose. Plasma levels were high, reached steady state, and showed allometric scaling.
Potent tumor shrinkage in nonclinical models
OP-1250 shrank or eliminated tumors in a wide variety of xenograft models including in an ovariectomized mouse breast cancer model designed to mimic the endocrine environment of post-menopausal women using HCI- 013EI, an estrogen-independent patient-derived xenograft model containing a Y537S mutation. In this model, tumor growth occurred even in the absence of estrogen production due to the constitutive or always-on activity of the Y537S mutant ER protein. At daily oral doses of 3 mg/kg and higher, dosing with OP-1250 led to tumor reductions in all treated mice. In contrast, fulvestrant led to a detectable reduction in only two of the seven treated mice.
21
Table of Contents
Figure 12. At daily oral doses of 3 mg/kg and above, treatment with OP-1250 led to tumor
shrinkage in all treated mice in an HCI-013EI patient-derived xenograft model
Change in tumor volume of HCI-013EI patient-derived tumors, carrying the Y537S mutation in the ER and adapted to grow without estrogen, implanted in the mammary fat pad of non-obese diabetic, or NOD/SCID ovariectomized mice. Mice were treated with oral OP-1250 at the dose indicated, or with subcutaneous fulvestrant (Faslodex preparation). Upper panel shows tumor size of each tumor measured with calipers at termination. Lower panel shows mean tumor size of each treatment group of 8 over the course of the study.
Daily oral dosing with OP-1250 led to tumor shrinkage in multiple xenograft models in mice with intact ovaries. These models included the HCC1500 cell line, which have wild-type ER and the ST941 and HCI-013 patient- derived xenograft models, both of which contain ERs that have the Y537S mutation. Similar to what was seen in the ovariectomized mouse model, OP-1250 demonstrated more potent antitumor activity than fulvestrant, which failed to consistently shrink tumors in any of these models.
22
Table of Contents
Figure 13. OP-1250 led to tumor shrinkage in multiple breast cancer xenograft models in
mice including HCC1500, which contain wild-type ER, and ST941 and HCI-013, which
contain the Y537S mutation in ER
HCC1500
23
Table of Contents
ST941
HCI-013
Change in tumor volume of various human xenograft tumors implanted in the mammary fat pad of ovary intact immunodeficient mice supplemented with estrogen releasing pellets and treated with the indicated dose of oral OP-1250, oral OP-1250 plus oral palbociclib, or subcutaneous fulvestrant (Faslodex preparation). Left panel of Figure 13 shows tumor size of each tumor measured with calipers at termination. Right panel shows mean tumor size of each treatment group of 8 over the course of the study. HCC1500, wild type ER cell line implanted in NSG mice; ST941 patient derived xenograft, or PDX, model with Y537S ER in JAX nude mice; HCI-013 PDX model with Y537S ER in NOD/SCID mice.
Drug accumulation in tumors
We observed that OP-1250 was consistently more effective in shrinking tumors in xenograft models than fulvestrant, despite the roughly equal potency of OP-1250 and fulvestrant in cell culture assays in which the drug is added directly to the cells. Detailed analyses of the tissue distribution of these two molecules identified that OP- 1250 became concentrated in tumors many-fold greater as compared to plasma. By contrast, the tumor-to-plasma ratio for fulvestrant was 2 to 3.
24
Table of Contents
Figure 14. Levels of OP-1250 were many-fold higher in tumors compared to those in plasma
Tumor
(ng/g)
Dose
Plasma
(assuming density
Tumor to Plasma
Treatment
(mg/kg)
(ng/mL)
of 1g/mL)
Ratio
OP‑1250
0.3
1
11.5
12.8
OP‑1250
1
10
106
10.8
OP‑1250
3
54
1,463
27.0
OP‑1250
10
344
13,610
39.5
OP‑1250
30
1,226
55,184
45.0
Fulvestrant
50/25
69
175
2.6
OP-1250 was dosed daily orally by gavage in the mouse. Plasma levels were measured by high performance liquid chromatography, or HPLC. Tumors were removed surgically, weighed, macerated, and extracted to determine the concentration of OP-1250.
Brain penetration
There remains an unmet medical need in the treatment of patients with metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer that has spread to the brain. The challenges in treating brain metastasis are multifactorial and likely include the presence of resistance mutations and the inability to achieve efficacious levels of effective drugs in brain tissue. In mice, we found that OP-1250 reached drug levels in the brain as high as 50% greater than in plasma. Combined with the ability to achieve higher drug levels with OP-1250, due to its improved PK properties, than fulvestrant, we found that we could obtain brain exposure to concentrations of OP-1250 that were greater than 30 times that of fulvestrant.
Figure 15. OP-1250 demonstrated robust CNS penetration in the mouse brain
Brain
Dose
Concentration
Plasma
Treatment
(mg/kg)
(ng/g)
Concentration (ng/mL)
Brain to Plasma Ratio
OP‑1250
1
5
10
0.4
OP‑1250
3
45
54
0.8
OP‑1250
10
499
344
1.4
OP‑1250
30
1,920
1,226
1.6
Fulvestrant
50/25
60
69
0.9
OP-1250 was dosed daily orally by gavage in the mouse. Plasma levels were measured by HPLC. Cranial tissue samples removed surgically, weighed, macerated, and extracted to determine the concentration of OP-1250.
OP-1250 was effective in an intracranial xenograft brain metastasis model, in which ST941 tumor cells were implanted directly into the brain by stereotactic surgery. Tumors were stimulated with estrogen and allowed to grow for two or three weeks and their presence in the brain confirmed by MRI. The mice were then treated with one of the following: 3 mg/kg OP-1250; 10 mg/kg OP-1250; 75 mg/kg ribociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor known to cross the blood brain barrier; a combination of 3 mg/kg OP-1250 and 75 mg/kg ribociclib; or vehicle control. Mice were treated once daily for up to 100 days and followed for tumor size with MRI and survival. Monotherapy with 3 mg/kg OP-1250, or 75 mg/kg ribociclib, had small effects on survival, but the combination of both compounds increased survival five-fold from 15 to 80 days compared to vehicle control. In further contrast, mice treated with 10 mg/kg OP-1250 did not reach median survival at 100 days. No detectable tumors were found in six of the seven then surviving mice after 80 days, and six of eight mice were still alive after 100 days. Treatment was stopped at 100 days and the survival of the mice was followed. In this high dose, OP-1250 group median survival was reached at 125 days, despite suspension of therapy at day 100. At the conclusion of the experiment at day 160, two of the three surviving mice had no detectable brain tumor and the third had
25
Table of Contents
a slowly growing tumor. We believe that the ability of OP-1250 to eradicate brain metastasis in mice demonstrates the potential of OP-1250 to advance the treatment of patients with breast cancer with brain metastases.
Figure 16. Treatment with 10 mg/kg OP-1250 led to long-term survival in a xenograft model
of breast cancer brain metastases
The figure above highlights an experiment in an intracranial breast cancer brain metastases xenograft study. Endpoints were tumor volume and survival. Shown is a Kaplan-Meier plot showing the percentage of surviving mice in each group over time. Tick marks indicate censored data reflecting that mice were enrolled on different days. Dashed red line shows cessation of treatment in OP-1250 10 mg/kg group.
Figure 17: Treatment with 10 mg/kg OP-1250 led to tumor shrinkage in a xenograft model
of breast cancer brain metastases
26
Table of Contents
ST941 PDX material was stereotactically implanted directly into the brains of nude mice. Tumor volumes were followed and confirmed via MRI prior to inclusion in study. Drugs were administered for up to 100 days and tumor growth was followed via MRI. Daily oral administration of OP-1250 slowed tumor growth in the ST941 brain metastases model at 3 mg/kg, and shrunk tumors at 10 mg/kg. Ribociclib (ribo) at 75 mg/kg also slowed tumor growth but to a lesser degree than did OP-1250 at 3 mg/kg. The combination of 3 mg/kg OP-1250 and 75 mg/kg ribociclib substantially slowed tumor growth, to a much greater degree than 3 mg/kg OP-1250 or 75 mg/kg alone, but did not shrink tumors as OP-1250 as 10 mg/kg OP-1250 did.
Combinations with other breast cancer therapies
As in most other solid tumors, effective antitumor activity often requires the use of combination therapy. In the case of ER+ breast cancer, for example, activation of the CDK4/6 pathway is associated with resistance to fulvestrant and CDK4/6 inhibitors are routinely used in combination with fulvestrant. We observed that OP-1250 in combination with three different CDK4/6 inhibitors resulted in increased inhibition of MCF-7 cell proliferation as did OP-1250 in combination with the PI3Kα inhibitor alpelisib in T47D cells.
Figure 18. The combination of OP-1250 and CDK4/6 inhibitors resulted in potent
anti-proliferative activity in MCF-7 cells
In vitro cell proliferation experiment measuring DNA content after 7-day treatment of MCF-7 breast cancer cells with ligands in the presence of 100 pM E2. Shown are mean values normalized to vehicle (+E2), along with SEM from triplicate wells.
27
Table of Contents
Figure 19. The combination of OP-1250 and PI3Kα inhibitors resulted in potent
anti-proliferative activity in T47D cells
In vitro cell proliferation experiment measuring DNA content after 6-day treatment of T47D breast cancer cells with ligands in the presence of 100 pM E2. Shown are increasing concentrations of alpelisib with three different concentrations of OP-1250, mean values normalized to vehicle (+E2), and SEM from triplicate wells.
Summary of nonclinical properties
We believe OP-1250’s oral formulation and dual mechanism of action directly address the limitations of current endocrine therapies, such as fulvestrant and tamoxifen, and position OP-1250 as a potential endocrine therapy of choice for the treatment of ER+ breast cancers. We have demonstrated in nonclinical studies that OP-1250 functions both as a CERAN and a SERD, but is distinguished from fulvestrant in several noteworthy ways, including:
● OP-1250 is orally bioavailable while fulvestrant is a highly insoluble compound that must be administered monthly by intramuscular injection into the buttocks;
● OP-1250 has favorable biodistribution properties leading to higher drug concentrations in the plasma and tumor than those achieved with fulvestrant, as shown in a head-to-head mouse xenograft study; and
● OP-1250 has demonstrated the ability to shrink tumors in head-to-head nonclinical studies with fulvestrant, in contrast to fulvestrant, which has only been shown to inhibit tumor growth.
We believe OP-1250 has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer, initially for patients who have previously received endocrine therapy, as well as those who are treatment naïve in the metastatic setting. Additionally, given the differentiated product profile, we believe that OP-1250 has the potential to advance into the adjuvant setting for early-stage ER+ breast cancer.
Clinical development plan for OP-1250 and additional clinical opportunities
In August 2020, we initiated enrollment in our Phase 1/2 open label, multi-center clinical trial of OP-1250, OP- 1250-001, in patients, both women and men, with recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast
28
Table of Contents
cancer. The Phase 1 portion of this trial consists of monotherapy dose-escalation cohorts of three to six patients receiving oral daily doses of OP-1250. The primary objectives of this portion of the trial are to assess safety, tolerability, PK, pharmacodynamics and the determination of the MTD and/or the RP2D. We expect to report initial data from the Phase 1 portion of this trial in the second half of 2021.
After determining the MTD or RP2D for OP-1250 as monotherapy, we expect to initiate enrollment in the Phase 2 dose expansion portion of the trial to assess preliminary anti-tumor efficacy of OP-1250 as assessed by response rate and other clinical endpoints including safety, tolerability and PK. One cohort will enroll metastatic breast cancer patients whose disease has progressed following at least one anti-estrogen therapy in the advanced setting. A second cohort is exploratory and will enroll metastatic breast cancer patients diagnosed with brain metastases. Patients will be treated until progression of disease or unacceptable toxicity. Additionally, ESR1 status and relevant mutations will be evaluated from cell free DNA at various time points throughout the trial in order to assess outcomes in patients with both wild-type and mutant genes.
Enrollment in the Phase 1 dose-escalation phase of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial continues on track and we expect to report initial data from the Phase 1 portion of the trial in the second half of 2021. Preliminary PK data from the first dose cohort is consistent with nonclinical modeling of our Phase 1 starting dose.
We currently anticipate enrolling up to 94 patients in the OP-1250-001 trial. We expect such trial to generate safety, PK, response and other data in patients with and without ESR1 mutations, and data in patients that are both pre- and post-menopausal. The design of the trial allows the potential to expand our cohorts to include additional patient subsets as the trial design and data help to identify those patients most likely to benefit. A robust monotherapy response rate along with a clinically meaningful duration of response would enable us to move directly to a randomized pivotal trial evaluating OP-1250 versus fulvestrant in either an unselected population, a selected subset (patients with ESR1 mutations) or both.
Figure 20. Designs of the Phase 1/2 OP-1250-001 trial and Phase 1b OP-1250-002 for OP-1250
After the RP2D is identified in the current OP-1250-001 trial, OP-1250 will be evaluated in combination with both a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and a PI3Kα inhibitor in patients with a PIK3CA mutation. Each combination will be evaluated in an abbreviated dose escalation starting one to two dose levels below the RP2D of OP-1250 identified in the Phase 1 portion of the trial followed by a small expansion cohort to further evaluate the safety of each of the two combinations. Assuming that each combination is well tolerated, and that the monotherapy efficacy data from the Phase 1/2 trial is robust, we could move each combination into registration directed pivotal trials.
29
Table of Contents
Historically, treatment for pre-menopausal women with ER+ breast cancer was limited to tamoxifen given the dual source of estrogen in women with functioning ovaries. Today, some clinicians will treat pre-menopausal women with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone, or LHRH, agonists to suppress ovarian function in combination with drugs such as AIs or fulvestrant. Given OP-1250’s potency, and our data in nonclinical models of pre- menopausal animals, we intend to further study OP-1250 in pre-menopausal women without the use of LHRH agonists once preliminary data from the OP-1250-001 trial is obtained.
While all populations described above are in patients with ER+/HER2- breast cancer, we believe that there is an opportunity for us to study OP-1250 in patients with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, which represents approximately 11% of breast cancer patients and more than 50% of the patients with HER2+ breast cancer. In particular, up to 50% of patients with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer develop CNS disease. Combining OP-1250 with HER2 targeted agents may represent an opportunity to improve upon recent advancements in the treatment of CNS disease in patients that express both ER and HER2.
In addition to breast cancer, we intend to explore the use of OP-1250 in various gynecological malignancies, beginning with endometrial cancer. Approximately 80% of endometrial tumors are “endometriod” in nature and these tumors are driven by estrogen.
While our initial trials are focused on treating breast cancer patients with metastatic disease, we believe that if OP- 1250 is determined to be safe and effective in this population, there is potential for it to be used in earlier stage disease. Based on our extensive nonclinical studies, including certain head-to-head studies, we believe that OP-1250 could have superior PK properties and improved clinical outcomes than fulvestrant. If proven in the clinic, we believe that OP-1250 has the potential to not only replace fulvestrant but to become the endocrine treatment of choice for the treatment of both advanced/metastatic ER+ breast cancer as well as ultimately in early- stage ER+ breast cancer in the adjuvant setting.
Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement with Novartis
In July 2020, we entered into a non-exclusive Clinical Collaboration and Supply Agreement, or the Novartis Agreement, with Novartis. The collaboration is focused on the evaluation of the safety, tolerability and efficacy of OP-1250 in combination with Novartis’ proprietary CDK4/6 inhibitor KISQALI® (ribociclib) and/or Novartis’ proprietary phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor PIQRAY® (alpelisib), or collectively the Novartis Study Drugs, as part of our planned Phase 1b clinical trial of OP-1250 in patients with metastatic ER+ breast cancer. We will be responsible for the conduct of the clinical trials for the combined therapies in accordance with a mutually agreed development plan. As part of the collaboration, the parties granted to each other a non-exclusive, royalty- free license under certain of the parties’ respective background patent rights and other technology to use the parties’ respective study drugs in research and development, solely to the extent reasonably needed for the other party’s activities in the collaboration. All inventions and data developed in the performance of the clinical trials for the combined therapies (other than those specific to each component study drug), will be jointly owned by the parties.
We are responsible for manufacturing, packaging and labeling OP-1250, and for packaging and labeling all drugs used in the clinical trials for the combined therapies (other than the Novartis Study Drugs). Novartis is responsible for manufacturing and delivering to us the Novartis Study Drugs in such quantities as reasonably needed for the clinical trials for the combined therapies. In accordance with an agreed budget, Novartis will reimburse us for a majority of the direct outside costs, but no more than an amount in the low single digit millions of U.S. dollars, that we incur related to conducting the activities under the agreed development plan in conducting the clinical trials for the combined therapies.
The Novartis Agreement will terminate upon completion of all activities outlined in the development plan and the relevant protocols. Either party may terminate the Novartis Agreement for the uncured material breach or insolvency of the other party, if it reasonably deems it necessary in order to protect the safety, health or welfare of subjects enrolled in the clinical trials for the combined therapies due to the existence of a material safety issue, or in certain circumstances for an unresolved clinical hold with respect to either the Novartis Study Drugs
30
Table of Contents
or OP-1250. In addition, Novartis may terminate the Novartis Agreement if certain disputes between the parties are not resolved after following the applicable dispute resolution procedures, and we may terminate the
Novartis Agreement in the event we terminate all clinical trials of the combined therapies other than due to a material safety issue or upon a clinical hold.
The Novartis Agreement does not grant any right of first negotiation to participate in future clinical trials, and each of the parties retains all rights and ability to evaluate their respective compounds in any studies or clinical trials, either as a monotherapy or in combination with any other product or compound, in any therapeutic area. The parties retain their independent rights to commercialize their respective therapies both alone or with other parties.
Clinical Trial Agreement with Pfizer
In November 2020, we entered into a non-exclusive clinical trial agreement with Pfizer , or the Pfizer Agreement, to evaluate the safety and tolerability of OP-1250 in combination with Pfizer’s proprietary CDK4/6 inhibitor IBRANCE® (palbociclib) in patients with recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic ER+, HER2- breast cancer in a clinical trial. Under the terms of the non-exclusive agreement, we will be responsible for conducting the clinical trial for the combined therapies and Pfizer is responsible for supplying IBRANCE® to us at no cost to us.
We are responsible for manufacturing, packaging and labeling OP-1250, and for packaging and labeling all drugs used in the clinical trials for the combined therapies (other than IBRANCE® (palbociclib)). Pfizer is responsible for manufacturing and delivering to us IBRANCE® (palbociclib) in such quantities as reasonably needed for the clinical trials for the combined therapies.
The Pfizer Agreement will terminate upon completion of all activities outlined in the study plan and the relevant protocols. Either party may terminate the Pfizer Agreement for the uncured material breach or insolvency of the other party, if it reasonably deems it necessary in order to protect the safety, health or welfare of subjects enrolled in the clinical trials for the combined therapies due to the existence of a material safety issue, or in certain circumstances for an unresolved clinical hold with respect to either the IBRANCE® (palbociclib) or OP-1250. In addition, either party may terminate the Pfizer Agreement if certain disputes between the parties are not resolved after following the applicable dispute resolution procedures or if either party determines to discontinue clinical development for medical, scientific, legal or other reasons.
The Pfizer Agreement does not grant any right of first negotiation to participate in future clinical trials, and each of the parties retains all rights and ability to evaluate their respective compounds.
Intellectual Property
Our success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain, maintain and protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights for OP-1250 and any future product candidates and other discoveries, inventions, trade secrets and know-how that are critical to our business operations. Our success also depends in part on our ability to operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of others, and in part, on our ability to prevent others from infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating our intellectual property and proprietary rights. A comprehensive discussion on risks relating to intellectual property is provided under the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
Intellectual property rights relevant to pharmaceutical companies typically include a combination of patent rights, regulatory exclusivities, trademark rights, and trade secret protection. Our success depends, in part, on our ability to secure and enforce each of these types of intellectual property rights.
31
Table of Contents
The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in patents in the field of biotechnology has emerged in the United States and in Europe, among other countries. Changes in the patent laws and rules, either by legislation, judicial decisions, or regulatory interpretation in other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights, and more generally could affect the value of our intellectual property. In particular, our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing or otherwise commercializing any of our patented inventions, either directly or indirectly, will depend in part on our success in obtaining, defending and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions, and improvements. Regardless of the coverage we seek under our existing patent applications, there is always a risk that an alteration to the product or process may provide sufficient basis for a competitor to avoid infringement claims. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before a patent is issued and courts can reinterpret patent scope after issuance. Moreover, many jurisdictions, including the United States, permit third parties to challenge issued patents in administrative proceedings, which may result in further narrowing or even cancellation of patent claims.
An issued patent provides its owner (or possibly its licensee) with a right to exclude others from making, using or selling that which is claimed in the patent, for a specified period of time (the “term” of the patent), in the jurisdiction in which the patent is issued. In the United States, and in many other countries, utility patents have a presumptive term of 20 years from their effective filing date (which is the earliest non-provisional filing date to which the patent claims priority). However, many jurisdictions, including the United States, require the payment of periodic annuities or maintenance fees for patents to remain in force for the full 20-year term. The United States also has provisions that require a patent term to be shortened if its claims are too similar to another patent owned by the same party that has a shorter term. The term of a patent, and the protection it affords, is therefore limited and once the patent term of our issued patents has expired, we may face competition. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of the drugs we develop, it is possible that, before OP-1250 or any future product candidates we may develop can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent.
The United States and certain other jurisdictions also have provisions that permit extension of patent term for patents that claim a drug or drug product, or its approved use, if the patent was issued before clinical trials and were completed and regulatory approval secured, so long as certain specific requirements were satisfied. In the United States, such extension associated with regulatory approval is called a Patent Term Extension, or PTE, and it is limited to a maximum of five years, or less if the extended patent term would exceed 14 years after the date of regulatory approval. Only one patent can receive regulatory extension (e.g., PTE) per product approval.
The United States also offers a different form of patent term extension, known as Patent Term Adjustment, or PTA, whereby a particular patent’s term is automatically extended beyond the 20-year date if the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, caused delay during its examination; however, potentially available PTA is reduced by any amount of any delay caused by the patent applicant. We may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. There can be no assurance that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustment to the term of any of our patents.
A provisional patent application can establish a priority date for a patent, but only if certain deadlines and procedures are met. Specifically, a non-provisional application must be filed within 12 months of the provisional filing date, and such non-provisional filing must be made by an applicant who has properly documented its right to claim priority. Furthermore, if any changes are made to the application between the provisional and the non- provisional filings, the changed material may not be entitled to the priority filing date. Still further, in the biopharmaceutical industry, it is common for applicants to file a so-called “international” patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, as a non-provisional filing. Such an international application, often
32
Table of Contents
referred to as a “PCT application,” like a provisional application, cannot itself issue as a patent but rather preserves the applicant’s right to pursue patent filings in individual countries, which patent filings are referred to as “national applications” or “national phase filings” and can claim the benefit of priority to the prior PCT application (which may in turn claim priority to the prior provisional filing). For most jurisdictions, national phase applications claiming priority to a PCT application must be filed within 30 to 32 months of the PCT’s earliest priority date. If we fail to meet the deadline for filing non-provisional or national phase applications, or fail to complete all procedural requirements associated with such filings, we may lose our right to claim priority. Moreover, even if we comply with all deadlines and requirements, we may not be able to issue patents in relevant jurisdictions, and furthermore cannot predict whether any patents that might issue will provide us with any competitive advantage.
As of February 17, 2021, we own two issued patents in the United States and one granted patent in Japan relating to OP-1250. Granted claims encompass the OP-1250 compound, pharmaceutical compositions that include OP-1250, and, in some jurisdictions, certain methods of using OP-1250, including in treatment which may involve combination therapy; the 20- year term for these patents expires in 2036. Neither of the U.S. patents was awarded any PTA and it is uncertain whether any PTE will be available, and if so, how much. A related U.S. application remains pending, and applications are also pending in various ex-U.S. jurisdictions, including certain major market countries such as Australia, Canada, China, Europe and Japan. Two additional applications are pending, relating to certain dosing regimens or treatment of particular cancers or patient populations.
Certain patents related to OP-1250 may be eligible for PTE in certain jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, upon approval of a commercial use of the corresponding product by a regulatory agency in the jurisdiction where the patent was granted. However, there can be no assurance that we will receive or benefit from any PTE with respect to such patents.
In addition to patent term extension regulatory exclusivities, pharmaceutical marketing approval agencies such as the FDA and the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, offer certain data exclusivities for first-approved products with a new chemical entity, or NCE, exclusivity, and/or for approvals related to orphan indications, or Orphan Drug designation, and/or pediatric approvals, or Pediatric Exclusivity.
Furthermore, as OP-1250 has not previously been approved in the United States for any indication, OP-1250 may be eligible for five years of NCE exclusivity upon its first approval. Should that approval be for an orphan indication for which we have received Orphan Drug designation, the NCE and Orphan Drug exclusivity would run concurrently.
With respect to our owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any current patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting OP-1250 or any future product candidates and the methods used to manufacture them. Moreover, any issued patents and those that may issue in the future may not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of OP-1250 or any future product candidates. Any patents and those that may issue in the future may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented or invalidated, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related product candidates or limit the length of the term of patent protection that we may have for OP-1250 or any future product candidates. In addition, the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with complete protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar products to ours. For information regarding risks related to intellectual property, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
33
Table of Contents
We have also applied to register the “Olema,” “Olema Oncology,” and “Olema Therapeutics” trademarks with the USPTO. We do not currently own any U.S. registered trademarks for our brand or trade names. Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely impact our financial condition or results of operations.
In addition to patent, regulatory exclusivity, and trademark, we rely on trade secret and know-how protection to secure our proprietary position around our chemistry, technology and other discoveries and inventions that we consider important to our business.
We also seek to protect our intellectual property, including our trade secrets and know-how, in part by entering into confidentiality agreements with companies with whom we share proprietary and confidential information in the course of business discussions, and by having confidentiality terms in our agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, clinical investigators and other contractors and also by requiring our employees, commercial contractors, and certain consultants and investigators, to enter into invention assignment agreements that grant us ownership of any discoveries or inventions made by them while in our employ. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes or that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary rights. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. For information regarding risks related to intellectual property, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
Sales and Marketing
Given our stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization or distribution capabilities. We intend to build a commercial infrastructure to support sales of any approved products. We intend to continue evaluating opportunities to work with partners that enhance our capabilities with respect to the development and commercialization of OP-1250. In addition, we intend to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, in key markets either alone or with partners in order to maximize the worldwide commercial potential of our programs.
Manufacturing
We currently do not own or operate any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely for the foreseeable future, on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to produce OP-1250 for nonclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if OP-1250 receives marketing approval. We require that our CMOs produce bulk drug substances and finished drug products in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, and all other applicable laws and regulations. We maintain agreements with our manufacturers that include confidentiality and intellectual property provisions to protect our proprietary rights related to OP-1250.
34
Table of Contents
We have engaged CMOs to manufacture and package OP-1250 for nonclinical and clinical use. Additional CMOs are used to label and distribute OP-1250 for clinical use. We obtain our supplies from these CMOs on a purchase order basis and do not have long-term supply arrangements in place. Although we do not currently have contractual arrangements in place for redundant supply for OP-1250, it is our goal to identify and contract with at least two manufacturers for active pharmaceutical ingredient and two manufacturers for drug product. More broadly, for OP-1250 and any other product candidates we may develop, we intend to identify and qualify additional manufacturers to provide the active pharmaceutical ingredient and fill-and-finish services prior to seeking regulatory approval.
Competition
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid technological advancement, significant competition and an emphasis on intellectual property. We face potential competition from many different sources, including major and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with current therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.
Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, nonclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and oncology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.
Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or less expensive than any products we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their product candidates more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. We believe that the key competitive factors affecting the success of any of our product candidates, if approved, will include efficacy, combinability, safety profile, convenience, cost, level of promotional activity devoted to them and intellectual property protection.
If the product candidates for our priority programs are approved for the indications we are currently targeting, they will compete with the products discussed below. Furthermore, it is possible that other companies are also engaged in discovery or nonclinical development of product candidates for the same indications. These competitors, if successful in clinical development, may achieve regulatory approval and market adoption in advance of our product candidates, constraining our ability to gain significant market share for such product candidates. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, will complete with multiple approved products or products that may be approved for future indications for which we develop such product candidate.
35
Table of Contents
There are several currently marketed drugs and product candidates currently in development for the treatment of ER+ breast cancer that may compete with OP-1250 if approved, including: certain CERAN therapies, such as RG6171 being developed by Roche Holding AG/Genentech, Inc., fulvestrant, marketed as Faslodex® by AstraZeneca PLC, or any generic equivalents of Faslodex® that may be developed, AZD9833 being developed by AstraZeneca PLC, SAR439859 being developed by Sanofi S.A. and LY3484356 being developed by Eli Lilly and Co.; companies that develop or produce SERD or non-CERAN SERD therapies, such as ZN-c5 being developed by Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., elacestrant being developed by Radius Health, Inc., ARV-471 being developed by Arvinas, Inc., rintodestrant (G1T48) being developed by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. and H3B-6545 being developed by H3 Biomedicines, a subsidiary of Eisai Co., Ltd.
Government Regulation and Product Approval
As a biopharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation. Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state and local level) and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug products such as those we are developing. Any drug candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects.
U.S. Drug development process
In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
● completion of extensive nonclinical laboratory tests, nonclinical animal studies and formulation studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practices, or GLP, regulations and other applicable regulations;
● submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application, or IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
● approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;
36
Table of Contents
● performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable regulations, including the FDA’s current good clinical practice, or GCP, regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its proposed indication;
● submission to the FDA of an New Drug Application, or NDA, for a new drug;
● a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA to file the NDA for review;
● satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug is produced to assess compliance with the FDA’s current good manufacturing practice, or 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 and/or clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA;
● satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable; and
● FDA review and approval of the NDA prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug in the United States.
Before testing any compounds with potential therapeutic value in humans, the drug candidate enters the nonclinical testing stage. Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies, to assess the characteristics and potential safety and activity of the drug candidate. The conduct of the nonclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for human trials. Some nonclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the IND on clinical hold within that 30-day time period. 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. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a drug candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance.
For each successive clinical trial conducted with the investigational drug, a separate, new protocol submission to an existing IND must be made, along with any subsequent changes to the investigational plan. Sponsors are also subject to ongoing reporting requirements, including submission of IND safety reports for any serious adverse experiences associated with use of the investigational drug or findings from nonclinical studies suggesting a significant risk for human subjects, as well as IND annual reports on the progress of the investigations conducted under the IND.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the drug candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, 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 clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are
37
Table of Contents
minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
● Phase 1. The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion, the side effects associated with increasing doses and if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients.
● Phase 2. The drug is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases or conditions and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.
● Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall benefit/risk ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product approval. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of an NDA.
Post-approval studies, or Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 trials. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.
Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects.
Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.
Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.
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 as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
38
Table of Contents
U.S. Review and Approval Processes
Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, 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 may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances.
In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or 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 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. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the Pediatric Research Equity Act does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. However, if only one indication for a product has orphan designation, a pediatric assessment may still be required for any applications to market that same product for the non-orphan indication(s).
The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting an NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after it the application is submitted The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.
After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions and typically follows the advisory committee’s recommendations.
Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process and
39
Table of Contents
manufacturing facilities, it may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data and/or (an) additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.
If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling or may condition the approval of the NDA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct one or more post-market studies or clinical trials. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 testing, which involves clinical trials designed to further assess a drug safety and effectiveness, and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. The FDA may also determine that a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.
Orphan drug designation
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the
FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or inability to manufacture the product in sufficient quantities. The designation of such drug also entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar but not identical benefits in that jurisdiction.
40
Table of Contents
Expedited development and review programs
The FDA has a fast track designation program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drug products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs are eligible for Fast Track designation if they 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. Unique to a fast track product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, 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.
Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy for a serious condition where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious condition compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.
In addition, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug products intended to treat serious or life- threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on 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 approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post- marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.
A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a drug candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the drug is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug 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 intensive FDA interaction and guidance. If a drug is designated as breakthrough therapy, FDA will expedite the development and review of such drug. Breakthrough therapy designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The breakthrough therapy designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, which can also be granted to the same drug if relevant criteria are met. If a product is designated as breakthrough therapy, the FDA will work to expedite the development and review of such drug.
Even if a product 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. In addition, this designation may not provide a material commercial advantage.
Post-approval requirements
Any drug products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for
41
Table of Contents
direct- to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses.
In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the long term stability of the drug product. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.
The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.
U.S. Patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents, if granted, may be eligible for limited PTE under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. As compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term, or PTE, which is limited to a maximum of five years, or less if the extended patent term would exceed 14 years after the date of the regulatory approval of the product. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug or drug product, or its approved use, is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of a patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. There can be no assurance that we will benefit from any PTE or favorable adjustment to the term of any of our patents.
42
Table of Contents
Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can also delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. 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 for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the nonclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
Orphan drug exclusivity, as described above, may offer a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, except in certain circumstances. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.
Other U.S. Healthcare laws and compliance requirements
Although we currently do not have any products on the market, we are and, upon approval and commercialization, will be subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. In the United States, such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, price reporting, and provider transparency laws and regulations.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor but the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection.
Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor.
43
Table of Contents
Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute and the criminal healthcare fraud statutes (discussed below) was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, together with subsequent amendments and regulations, collectively, the ACA, to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (discussed below).
The federal False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or 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. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product and for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non- covered, uses.
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, also created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, 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. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.
Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) annually report information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, certain ownership and investment interests held by these healthcare providers and their immediate family members. Beginning in 2022, applicable manufacturers also will be required to report such information regarding its payments and other transfers of value to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists and certified nurse midwives during the previous year.
We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, impose requirements on covered entities, including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, and their respective business associates that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity as well as their covered subcontractors relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the
44
Table of Contents
privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.
We also are or will become subject to privacy laws in the jurisdictions in which we are established or in which we sell or market our products or run clinical trials. For example, in Europe we are subject to Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, in relation to our collection, control, processing and other use of personal data (i.e. data relating to an identifiable living individual). We process personal data in relation to participants in our clinical trials in the European Economic Area, or EEA, including the health and medical information of these participants. The GDPR is directly applicable in each European Union Member State, however, it provides that European Union Member States may introduce further conditions, including limitations which could limit our ability to collect, use and share personal data (including health and medical information), or could cause our compliance costs to increase, ultimately having an adverse impact on our business.
The GDPR imposes onerous accountability obligations requiring data controllers and processors to maintain a record of their data processing and implement policies as part of its mandated privacy governance framework. It also requires data controllers to be transparent and disclose to data subjects (in a concise, intelligible and easily accessible form) how their personal information is to be used, imposes limitations on retention of personal data; defines pseudonymized (i.e., key-coded) data; introduces mandatory data breach notification requirements; and sets higher standards for data controllers to demonstrate that they have obtained valid consent for certain data processing activities. We are subject to the supervision of local data protection authorities in those European Union jurisdictions where we are established or otherwise subject to the GDPR. Fines for certain breaches of the GDPR are significant: up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of total global annual turnover. Further, following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on January 31, 2020, pursuant to the transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, we will have to comply with the GDPR and separately the GDPR as implemented in the United Kingdom, each regime having the ability to fine up to the greater of €20 million/ £17 million or 4% of global turnover. Pursuant to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect on January 1, 2021, the United Kingdom and European Union agreed to a specified period during which the United Kingdom will be treated like a European Union member state in relation to transfers of personal data to the United Kingdom for four months from January 1, 2021. This period may be extended by two further months. Unless the European Commission makes an ‘adequacy finding’ in respect of the United Kingdom before the expiration of such specified period, the United Kingdom will become an ‘inadequate third country’ under the GDPR and transfers of data from the EEA to the United Kingdom will require an ‘transfer mechanism,’ such as the standard contractual clauses. Furthermore, following the expiration of the specified period, there will be increasing scope for divergence in application, interpretation and enforcement of the data protection law as between the United Kingdom and EEA. In addition, as of January 1, 2021, the United Kingdom Information Commissioner’s Office is not able to be our ‘lead supervisory authority’ in respect of any ‘cross border processing’ for the purposes of the GDPR. In addition to the foregoing, a breach of the GDPR or other applicable privacy and data protection laws and regulations could result in regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease/change our use of data, enforcement notices, or potential civil claims including class action type litigation.
In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers. Certain aspects of cross-border data transfers under the GDPR are uncertain as the result of legal proceedings in the European Union, including a recent decision by the Court of Justice for the European Union that invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and, to some extent, called into question the efficacy and legality of using standard contract clauses. This may increase the complexity of transferring personal data across borders. The GDPR will increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. We are also subject to European Union rules with respect to cross-border transfers of personal data out of the European Union and EEA. Recent legal developments in the European Union have created complexity and uncertainty regarding transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United States. On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework, or Privacy Shield, under which personal data could be transferred from the EEA to US
45
Table of Contents
entities who had self-certified under the Privacy Shield scheme. While the CJEU upheld the adequacy, subject to certain conditions, of the standard contractual clauses (a standard form of contract approved by the European Commission as an adequate personal data transfer mechanism), future regulatory guidance could result in changes to the use of standard contractual clauses. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, including circumstances where the standard contractual clauses cannot be used, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results.
Further, the vote in the United Kingdom in favor of exiting the European Union, referred to as Brexit, has complicated data protection regulation in the United Kingdom. In particular, as of January 1,2021, the GDPR has been converted into United Kingdom law and the United Kingdom is now a “third country” under the GDPR. In addition, California recently enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers (as defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling certain personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosure to consumers about such companies’ data collection, use and sharing practices, provide such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information, and provide consumers with additional causes of action. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for certain data breaches that result in the loss of personal information. This private right of action may increase the likelihood of, and risks associated with, data breach litigation. The CCPA became effective on January 1, 2020, and (a) allows enforcement by the California Attorney General, with fines set at $2,500 per violation (i.e., per person) or $7,500 per intentional violation and (b) authorizes private lawsuits to recover statutory damages for certain data breaches. In addition, laws in all 50 U.S. states require businesses to provide notice to consumers whose personal information has been disclosed as a result of a data breach. State laws are changing rapidly and there is discussion in the U.S. Congress of a new comprehensive federal data privacy law to which we would become subject if it is enacted. The CCPA may impact our business activities and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information. Additionally, California voters approved a new privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, in the November 3, 2020 election. Effective starting on January 1, 2023, the CPRA will significantly modify the CCPA, including by expanding consumers’ rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information. The CPRA also creates a new state agency that will be vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. New legislation proposed or enacted in various other states will continue to shape the data privacy environment nationally. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to confidential, sensitive and personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts. In addition to the foregoing, any breach of privacy laws or data security laws, particularly resulting in a significant security incident or breach involving the misappropriation, loss or other unauthorized use or disclosure of sensitive or confidential patient or consumer information, could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation and financial condition. As a data controller, we will be accountable for any third-party service providers we engage to process personal data on our behalf, including our CROs. We attempt to mitigate the associated risks but there is no assurance that privacy and security-related safeguards will protect us from all risks associated with the third-party processing, storage and transmission of such information.
In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing,
46
Table of Contents
pricing, track and report gifts, compensation and other remuneration made to physicians and other healthcare providers, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.
If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, or refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. For information regarding risks related to these compliance requirements, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Other Legal Compliance Matters.”
Pharmaceutical coverage, pricing and reimbursement
Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we or our collaborators obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we or our collaborators receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such drug products. In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, government authorities, private managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations.
Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical drug products and medical services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. Such payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We or our collaborators may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Nonetheless, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. Moreover, the process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the drug product. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.
If we elect to participate in certain governmental programs, we may be required to participate in discount and rebate programs, which may result in prices for our future products that will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. For example, drug manufacturers participating under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program must pay rebates on prescription drugs to state Medicaid programs. Under the Veterans Health Care Act, or VHCA, drug companies are required to offer certain drugs at a reduced price to a number of federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense, the Public Health Service and certain private Public Health Service designated entities in order to participate in other federal funding programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Recent legislative changes require that discounted prices be offered for certain U.S. Department of Defense purchases for its TRICARE program via a rebate system. Participation under the VHCA also requires submission of pricing data and calculation of discounts and rebates pursuant to complex statutory formulas, as well as the entry into government procurement contracts governed
47
Table of Contents
by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. If our products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply.
Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the European Union, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular drug candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.
The marketability of any product candidates for which we or our collaborators receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we or our collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Healthcare reform
A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products and services, implementing reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and applying new payment methodologies. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which affected existing government healthcare programs and resulted in the development of new programs.
Among the Affordable Care Act’s provisions of importance to the pharmaceutical industry, in addition to those otherwise described above, are the following:
● an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents apportioned among these entities according to their market share in some government healthcare programs;
● an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% and 13% of the average manufacturer price for most branded and generic drugs, respectively, and a cap on the total rebate amount for innovator drugs at 100% of the Average Manufacturer Price, or AMP;
● a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% point- of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;
● extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;
● expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals, including individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability;
48
Table of Contents
● expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program; and
● a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research.
There have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the Tax Act was enacted, which includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case, but it is unknown when a decision will be reached. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through May 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business.
Other legislative changes have also been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013. However, COVID-19 relief legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.
There has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which pharmaceutical companies set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed federal legislation, as well as state efforts, designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. 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, President Trump 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 20, 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 implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. 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 which have also been delayed pending review by the Biden administration until March 22, 2021. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other
49
Table of Contents
economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the United States District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.
We anticipate that these new laws will result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved product, and could seriously harm our business. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products (if approved). In addition, it is possible that there will be further legislation or regulation that could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations. For example, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.
Europe / rest of world government regulation
In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we or our potential collaborators obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries.
Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the European Union, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. The European Union’s regulatory environment for clinical trials is being harmonized as part of the Clinical Trial Regulation, which is expected to take effect in late 2021, there will be a centralized application procedure where one national authority takes the lead in reviewing the application and the other national authorities have only a limited involvement .
The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all major territories, including the European Union, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.
The European Union and the European Economic Area consist, at the time of writing, of the twenty-seven Member States of the European Union, plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein which are Member States of the European Economic Area. To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational drug or biological product under European Union regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application either under
50
Table of Contents
the so-called centralized or national authorization procedures. There are three procedures for a marketing authorization to be obtained:
● The Centralized marketing authorization, which is issued by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure, based on the scientific opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the European Economic Area. The Centralized Procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as (i) biotechnology medicinal products such as genetic engineering, (ii) orphan medicinal products, (iii) medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, autoimmune and viral diseases and (iv) advanced-therapy medicines, such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The Centralized Procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the European Union, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the European Union.
● Decentralized Procedure marketing authorizations are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the Centralized Procedure. An identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the Member States in which the marketing authorization is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State, or RMS, to lead the evaluation of the regulatory submission. The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the product characteristics, or SmPC, and a draft of the labeling and package leaflet as distilled from the preliminary evaluation, which are sent to the other Member States (referred to as the Concerned Member States) for their approval. If the Concerned Member States raise no objections, based on a potential serious risk to public health, to the assessment, SmPC, labeling, or packaging proposed by the RMS, the RMS records the agreement, closes the procedure and informs the applicant accordingly. Each Member State concerned by the procedure is required to adopt a national decision to grant a national marketing authorization in conformity with the approved assessment report, SmPC and the labeling and package leaflet as approved. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the European Economic Area, the granted national marketing authorization can be used for mutual recognition in other Member States through the Mutual Recognition Procedure, or MRP, resulting in progressive national approval of the product in the European Economic Area.
● National marketing authorizations, which are issued by a single competent authority of the Member States of the European Economic Area and only covers such authority’s respective territory, are also available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the Centralized Procedure. Once a product has been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the European Economic Area through the National Procedure, this National marketing authorization can also be recognized in other Member States through the Mutual Recognition Procedure.
The EMA grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that may offer therapeutic benefits for life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 people in the European Union. In addition, orphan drug designation can be granted if the drug is intended for a life threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and without incentives it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify developing the drug. Orphan drug designation is only available if there is no other satisfactory method approved in the European Union of diagnosing, preventing or treating the condition, or if such a method exists, the proposed orphan drug will be of significant benefit to patients. Orphan drug designation provides opportunities for free protocol assistance, fee reductions for access to the centralized regulatory procedures and ten years of market exclusivity following drug approval, which can be extended to 12 years if trials are conducted in accordance with an agreed-upon pediatric investigational plan. The exclusivity period may be reduced to six years if the designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.
For other countries outside of the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from
51
Table of Contents
country to country. In all major territories, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we or our potential collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.
Employees and Human Capital
As of March 1, 2021, we had 37 employees, 36 of whom were full-time, consisting of clinical, research, operations, regulatory, finance and business development personnel. 13 of our employees hold Ph.D. or M.D. degrees. None of our employees is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.
Olema’s commitment to innovation begins with the commitment to creating an environment with the ability to attract and retain highly skilled people, including top scientific talent, as a critical factor for us to deliver on our mission and create value.
As we have grown over the past year and become a public company, we have focused on diversity, inclusion and belonging both at the Board level, where we appointed two global biotech female leaders to our Board in 2020, and for all employees. We have been successful in hiring employees with a broad diversity of experiences and backgrounds. Olema faces significant competition for biotechnology talent from both established and early-stage biotechnology companies. Further, we are headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area, a global biotechnology hub with many employment choices. Despite our early stage, we have been successful in hiring highly qualified staff to join Olema.
As we further expand our human capital processes and focus in 2021, we strive to create a positive employee experience by fostering an inclusive and equitable culture. We are committed to the health, safety, and well-being of our employees, with a particular focus on COVID-19 related protections and precautions for our workforce. This commitment is reflected in our ability to attract and retain the best and we have a robust employment package that promotes well-being across all aspects of our employees’ lives, including healthcare, paid time-off, retirement savings with a company match through a 401(k) plan, our equity incentive plans, and our employee stock purchase plan. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, motivate and retain our employees, consultants, and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards. Olema grants stock options to all full-time employees to foster alignment and promote a spirit of ownership .
Legal Proceedings
From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings or be subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings. Regardless of outcome, such proceedings or claims can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of resources and other factors, and there can be no assurances that favorable outcomes will be obtained.
Corporate Information
We were incorporated in Delaware on August 7, 2006 under the legal name of CombiThera, Inc. and on March 25, 2009 were renamed Olema Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
52
Table of Contents