Item 1. Business
Item 1. Business .
Overview
We are a leader in the field of gene therapy, seeking to develop single treatments with potentially curative results for patients suffering from genetic and other devastating diseases. We are advancing a focused pipeline of innovative gene therapies, including product candidates for the treatment of hemophilia B, which we intend to license to CSL Behring pursuant to the CSL Behring Agreement (as defined below), and Huntington’s disease. We believe our validated technology platform and manufacturing capabilities provide us distinct competitive advantages, including the potential to reduce development risk, cost, and time to market. We produce our Adeno-associated virus (“AAV”) -based gene therapies in our own facilities with a proprietary, commercial-scale, current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”)-compliant, manufacturing process. We believe our Lexington, Massachusetts-based facility is one of the world’s most versatile gene therapy manufacturing facilities.
Key events
CSL Behring commercialization and license agreement
On June 24, 2020, uniQure biopharma B.V., a wholly-owned subsidiary of uniQure N.V., entered into a commercialization and license agreement (as amended, the “CSL Behring Agreement”) with CSL Behring LLC (“CSL Behring”) pursuant to which CSL Behring will receive exclusive global rights to etranacogene dezaparvovec, our investigational gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B (the “Product”).
Under the terms of the CSL Behring Agreement, we will receive a $450.0 million upfront cash payment upon the closing of the CSL Behring Agreement and be eligible to receive up to $1.6 billion in additional payments based on regulatory and commercial milestones. The CSL Behring agreement also provides that we will be eligible to receive tiered double-digit royalties in a range of up to a low-twenties percent of net sales of the Product based on sales thresholds.
Pursuant to the CSL Behring Agreement, we will be responsible for the completion of the HOPE-B clinical trial, manufacturing process validation, and the manufacturing supply of the Product until such time that these capabilities may be transferred to CSL Behring or its designated contract manufacturing organization. Concurrently with the execution of the CSL Behring Agreement, we and CSL Behring entered into a development and commercial supply agreement, pursuant to which, among other things, we will supply the Product to CSL Behring at an agreed-upon price. Clinical development and regulatory activities performed by us pursuant to the CSL Behring Agreement will be reimbursed by CSL Behring. CSL Behring will be responsible for global regulatory submissions and commercialization requirements for the Product.
Other than under the CSL Behring Agreement, neither we nor CSL Behring may perform any clinical trials, with the exception of trials required to extend the label or gain marketing authorization outside the United States or the European Union, for any gene therapy product, gene-editing product, or any other product comprising an AAV vector to conduct nucleotide transfer (including deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) and ribonucleic acid (“RNA”)) for the treatment, prevention, or cure of hemophilia B for a period commencing on June 24, 2020 and continuing for a period of four years following the first commercial sale of the Product in the United States, and neither we nor CSL Behring may commercialize such a product for a period commencing as of June 24, 2020 and continuing for a period of seven years following the first commercial sale of the Product in the United States. This exclusivity commitment would not bind an acquirer of us that owns or controls such a product so long as certain precautions are followed to ensure that CSL Behring’s confidential information and our proprietary technology related to the Product are not used or accessed by personnel of such acquirer who are developing or commercializing such competing product.
6
Table of Contents
Unless earlier terminated as described below, the CSL Behring Agreement will continue on a country-by-country basis until expiration of the royalty term in a country. The royalty term expires in a country on the later of (a) 15 years after the first commercial sale of the Product in such country, (b) expiration of regulatory exclusivity for the Product in such country and (c) expiration of all valid claims of specific licensed patents covering the Product in such country. Either we or CSL Behring may terminate the CSL Behring Agreement for the other party’s material breach if such breach is not cured within a specified cure period. In addition, if CSL Behring fails to commercialize the Product in any of a group of major countries for an extended period of time following the first regulatory approval of the Product in any of such group of countries (other than due to certain specified reasons) and such failure has not been cured within a specified cure period, then we may terminate the CSL Behring Agreement. CSL Behring may also terminate the CSL Behring Agreement for convenience.
The effectiveness of the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement is contingent on completion of review under antitrust laws in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, and certain provisions of the CSL Behring Agreement will not become effective until after we receive all such regulatory approvals.
On November 11, 2020, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) determined, pursuant to section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 of Australia, that it will not intervene in the CSL Behring Agreement. Thus, the ACCC has completed its review of the CSL Behring Agreement, and the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement may close from the perspective of the Australian competition authority.
On November 24, 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom (the “CMA”) adopted a decision not to refer the CSL Behring Agreement for proceedings under section 33 of the Enterprise Act 2002 of the United Kingdom. The decision was made public by the CMA on January 6, 2021. Thus, the CMA has completed its review of the CSL Behring Agreement, and the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement may close from the perspective of the United Kingdom competition authority.
On December 3, 2020, we and CSL Behring filed a premerger notification and report form under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the “HSR Act”). On January 4, 2021, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued to us a request for additional information and documentary material (a “Second Request”) under the HSR Act. The FTC similarly issued a Second Request to CSL Behring also with respect to the antitrust review of the CSL Behring Agreement. The effect of the Second Request is to extend the waiting period imposed under the HSR Act until 30 days after all parties to the CSL Behring Agreement have substantially complied with the requests unless the waiting period is terminated earlier by the FTC or voluntarily extended by the parties. We do not believe that the FTC will determine that the consummation of the transaction will result in a violation of the HSR Act. However, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of the Second Request.
Closing of the transaction is expected to materially impact our profitability and cash flows. Receipt of the $450.0 million payment due on closing would extend the funding of our operations into the second half of 2024 (assuming a full repayment of funds borrowed from Hercules Capital Inc. (“Hercules”) under our term loan facility by 2023). However, we expect to continue to incur losses and to generate negative cash flows beyond the fiscal year in which we would close the transaction.
Hemophilia B program – Etranacogene dezaparvovec (AMT-061)
Etranacogene dezaparvovec is our lead gene therapy candidate and includes an Adeno-associated virus (“AAV”) serotype 5 (together “AAV-5”) vector incorporating the functional human Factor IX (“FIX”) Padua variant. We are currently conducting a pivotal study in patients with severe and moderately-severe hemophilia B.
7
Table of Contents
In August 2018, we initiated a Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec and in September 2018, we completed the dosing for that study. In February, May, July, and December 2019, and in December 2020, we presented updated data from the Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec. The most recent data that we announced from the Phase IIb study of etranacogene dezaparvovec show that all three patients experienced increasing and sustained FIX levels after a one-time administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Mean FIX activity was 44.2% of normal two years after administration, exceeding threshold FIX levels generally considered sufficient to significantly reduce the risk of bleeding events. The first patient achieved FIX activity of 44.7% of normal, the second patient was 51.6% of normal and the third patient was 36.3% of normal. The second and third patients had previously screen-failed and were excluded from another gene therapy study due to pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to a different AAV vector. At two years after dosing, two of the three participants remain free from bleeds and use of FIX replacement therapy. A single bleed has been reported in one participant, who has used a total of two FIX infusions (excluding surgery). All patients have remained free of prophylaxis in the two years since receiving etranacogene dezaparvovec.
In June 2018, we initiated the six-month lead-in period of our Phase III HOPE-B pivotal trial of etranacogene dezaparvovec (the “HOPE-B trial”). The HOPE-B trial is a multinational, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etranacogene dezaparvovec. After the six-month lead-in period, patients received a single intravenous administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Patients enrolled in the HOPE-B trial were tested for the presence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AAV5 but not excluded from the trial based on their titers.
The primary endpoints of the study are based on the FIX activity level achieved following the administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec after 26 weeks and 52 weeks after dosing as well as annualized bleed rates during the 52 weeks after dosing.
In March 2020, we completed dosing of the 54 patients in the HOPE-B trial. The targeted number of patients to be dosed per the clinical trial protocol was 50. As set forth below, we have implemented and continue to implement various measures to allow us to closely monitor the trial within the guidance provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding the impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic (“COVID-19”) to minimize any risk or disruption in patient follow-up visits.
In December 2020, we announced top-line data from the HOPE-B trial. The 26-week follow-up date from the trial showed that FIX activity in the 54 patients increased after dosing from ≤ 2% to a mean of 37.2% at 26 weeks, meeting a first primary endpoint of the HOPE-B trial. No correlation between pre-existing neutralizing antibodies and FIX activity was found in patients with neutralizing antibody titers up to 678.2, a range expected to include more than 95% of the general population; one patient with a neutralizing antibody titer of 3,212.3 did not show an increase in FIX activity. Less than 1% of the general population is expected to have neutralizing antibody titers of greater than 3,000.
During the 26-week period after dosing, 15 patients (28%) reported a total of 21 bleeding events, representing a reduction of 83% compared to the 123 bleeding events reported by 38 patients (70%) during the observational lead-in phase of the trial. Total bleeds include any bleeding event reported after the treatment of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including spontaneous, traumatic, and those associated with unrelated medical procedures, whether or not FIX treatment was required. Of the total bleeding events reported during the 26-week period after dosing, only three were classified as spontaneous bleeds requiring treatment, representing a reduction of 92% compared to the 37 such bleeding events reported during the observational lead-in phase. Mean annualized usage of FIX replacement therapy, a secondary endpoint in the clinical trial, declined by 96% during the 26-week period after dosing compared to the observational lead-in phase. Etranacogene dezaparvovec was generally well-tolerated. As of the November 2020 cut-off date, most adverse events were classified as mild (81.5%). The most common events included transaminase elevation treated with steroids per protocol (9 patients; 17%), infusion-related reactions (7 patients; 13%), headache (7 patients; 13%) and influenza-like symptoms (7 patients; 13%). Liver enzyme elevations resolved with a tapering course of corticosteroids and FIX activity remained in the mild range in the steroid treated patients. No relationship between safety and neutralizing antibody titers was observed. Based on interactions with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), we plan to incorporate FIX activity and bleeding rates at 52 weeks as additional co-primary endpoints in the study.
8
Table of Contents
On December 21, 2020, our clinical trials of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including our HOPE-B trial, were placed on clinical hold by the FDA. The clinical hold was initiated following the submission of a safety report in mid-December relating to a possibly related serious adverse event associated with a preliminary diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (“HCC”), a form of liver cancer, in one patient in the HOPE-B trial that was treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec in October 2019. The patient has multiple risk factors associated with HCC, including a twenty-five-year history of hepatitis C (“HCV”), hepatitis B virus (“HBV”), evidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and advanced age. Chronic infections with hepatitis B and C have been associated with approximately 80% of HCC cases.
The liver lesion was detected during a routine abdominal ultrasound conducted as part of the required study assessments in patients at one-year post dosing. A surgical resection of the lesion has occurred, and an analysis of the tissue samples was initiated in early 2021. On February 19, 2021, we reported initial results from this analysis to the FDA in accordance with pharmacovigilance requirements. We are gathering final data from these molecular analyses and will be preparing a detailed response to the FDA’s clinical hold questions regarding this event. Currently, we do not have adequate data to determine a possible causal relationship, especially in the context of the other known risk factors. We currently do not anticipate any impact on our regulatory submission timelines, including the filing of a BLA.
No other cases of HCC have been reported in our clinical trials conducted in more than 67 patients in hemophilia B, with some patients dosed more than 5 years ago.
Etranacogene dezaparvovec has been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the FDA and access to the current priority medicines (“PRIME”) initiative by the EMA.
Huntington’s disease program (AMT-130)
AMT-130 is our novel gene therapy candidate for the treatment of Huntington’s disease. AMT-130 utilizes our proprietary, gene-silencing miQURE platform and incorporates an AAV vector carrying an miRNA specifically designed to silence the huntingtin gene and the potentially highly toxic exon 1 protein fragment. AMT-130 has received orphan drug and Fast Track designations from the FDA and Orphan Medicinal Product Designation from the EMA.
In June 2020, we announced the completion of the first two patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease. These procedures occurred after a postponement that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated states of emergency declarations in the United States. The Phase I/II protocol is a randomized, imitation surgery-controlled, double-blinded study conducted at three surgical sites, and multiple referring, non-surgical sites in the U.S. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AMT-130 at two doses.
On September 25, 2020, we announced that the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (“DSMB”) overseeing the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease had met and reviewed 90-day safety data from the first two patients enrolled in the trial. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing.
On October 13, 2020, we announced the completion of the third and fourth patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial.
On February 8, 2021, we announced that the DSMB had met and reviewed the six-month safety data from the first two enrolled patients and the 90-day safety data from the next two enrolled patients in the study. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing, and the final six patients in the first cohort are now cleared for enrollment.
BMS collaboration
We and Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”) entered into a collaboration and license agreement in May 2015 (“BMS CLA”). BMS had initially designated four Collaboration Targets in 2015 and in accordance with the terms of the BMS CLA could have designated a fifth to tenth Collaboration Target.
In February 2019, BMS requested a one-year extension of the initial research term. In April 2019, following an assessment of the progress of this collaboration and our expanding proprietary programs, we notified BMS that we did not intend to agree to an extension of the initial research term. Accordingly, the initial four-year research term under the collaboration terminated on May 21, 2019.
9
Table of Contents
On December 1, 2020, we and BMS amended the BMS CLA (“amended BMS CLA”). Following the amendment BMS is no longer entitled to designate a fifth to tenth Collaboration Target and as such we are no longer entitled to receive an aggregate $16.5 million in target designation payments for research, development, and regulatory milestone payments related to the fifth and tenth Collaboration Targets. For a period of one-year from the effective date of the amended BMS CLA, BMS may replace up to two of the four active Collaboration Targets with two new targets in the field of cardiovascular disease. We continue to be entitled to receive up to $217.0 million for each of the four Collaboration Targets if defined milestones are achieved, as well as royalties on net sales associated with any Collaboration Target. On December 17, 2020, BMS designated one of the four Collaboration Targets as a candidate to advance into IND-enabling studies entitling us to receive a $4.4 million research milestone payment. We recorded the $4.4 million as License Revenue in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2020.
The amended BMS CLA does not extend the initial research term. BMS may place purchase orders to provide limited services primarily related to analytical and development efforts in respect of the four Collaboration Targets. BMS may request such services for a period not to exceed the earlier of (i) the completion of all activities under a Research Plan and (ii) either (A) three years after the last replacement target has been designated by BMS during the one-year replacement period following the amended BMS CLA effective date or (B) three years if no replacement targets are designated during this one-year period and BMS continues to reimburse us for these services.
For as long as any of the four Collaboration Targets are being advanced, BMS may place a purchase order to be supplied with research, clinical and commercial supplies. Subject to the terms of the amended BMS CLA, BMS has the right to terminate the research, clinical and commercial supply relationships, and has certain remedies for failures of supply, up to and including technology transfer for any such failure that otherwise cannot be reasonably resolved. Both we and BMS may agree to a technology transfer of manufacturing capabilities pursuant to the terms of the amended BMS CLA.
We have agreed to certain restrictions on our ability to work independently of the collaboration, either directly or indirectly through any affiliate or third party, on certain programs that would be competitive with a Collaboration Target. We have agreed to indication exclusivity for the current four Collaboration Targets. BMS may add or change the exclusive indications in the process of replacing Collaboration Targets as described above. We can opt out of the indication exclusivity by giving up certain economic rights under the amended BMS CLA for each such indication that is affected by us opting out. If we opt out of an exclusive indication, we could pursue other targets for such indication other than a Collaboration Target.
The amended BMS CLA also terminated two warrants to increase BMS ownership in the Company up to 19.9% through purchasing a specific number of our ordinary shares following the designation of a seventh, and a tenth Collaboration Target, respectively. We and BMS agreed that upon the consummation of a change of control transaction of uniQure that occurs prior to the earlier of (i) December 1, 2026 and (ii) BMS’ delivery of a target cessation notice for all four Collaboration Targets, uniQure (or its third party acquirer) shall pay to BMS a one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable cash payment of $70.0 million, provided that (x) if $70.0 million is greater than five percent of the net proceeds (as contractually defined) from such change of control transaction, the payment shall be an amount equal to five percent of such net proceeds, and (y) if $70.0 million is less than one percent of such net proceeds, the change of control payment shall be an amount equal to one percent of such net proceeds. We have not consummated any change of control transaction as of December 31, 2020 that would obligate us to make a payment to BMS.
The amended BMS CLA did not change any of the provisions of the Investor Agreement with BMS that we entered into in 2015. We have granted BMS certain registration rights that allow BMS to require us to register our securities beneficially held by BMS under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”). BMS may make up to two such demands for us to register the shares, provided that we may deny such demand if (i) the market value of the shares to be registered is less than $10.0 million (provided however, if BMS holds less than $10.0 million worth of our shares, we must comply with their demand for registration), (ii) we certify to BMS that we plan to effect a registration within 120 days of their demand or we are engaged in a transaction that would be required to be disclosed in a registration statement and that is not reasonably practicable to be disclosed at that time, or (iii) we have already effected one registration statement within the twelve months preceding BMS’s demand for registration. In addition, independent of their demand registration rights, upon the occurrence of certain events, we must also provide BMS the opportunity to include their ordinary shares in any registration statement that we effect.
10
Table of Contents
We also continue to grant BMS certain information rights under the Investor Agreement, although these requirements may be satisfied by our public filings required by U.S. securities laws.
BMS also continues to be subject to a lock up pursuant to the Investor Agreement for as long as BMS holds more than 4.9% of our ordinary shares (as of December 31, 2020 BMS holds 5.3%). Without our prior consent, BMS may not sell or dispose any of its current ordinary shares.
The Investor Agreement also continues to require BMS to vote all of our ordinary shares it beneficially holds in favor of all items on the agenda for the relevant general meeting of shareholders of our company as proposed on behalf of our company, unless, in the context of a change of control or similar transaction, BMS has itself made an offer to our company or our board in connection with the transaction that is the subject of the vote, in which case it is free to vote its shares at its discretion. This voting provision will terminate upon the later of the date on which BMS no longer beneficially owns at least 4.9% of our outstanding ordinary shares, the closing of a transaction that provides BMS exclusive and absolute discretion to vote our shares it beneficially holds, or the termination of the amended BMS CLA for breach by us.
Term loan facility
As of December 31, 2020, a $35.0 million term loan was outstanding in accordance with the Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (“2018 Amended Facility”) between us and Hercules.
On January 29, 2021 we and Hercules entered into amendments to the 2018 Amended Facility (the “2021 Amended Facility”). Pursuant to the 2021 Amended Facility, Hercules agreed to make additional term loans in the maximum aggregate amount of $100.0 million (the “2021 Term Loan”), increasing the aggregate principal amount of the term loan facility from $35.0 million to up to $135.0 million. On January 29, 2021 we drew down $35.0 million of the 2021 Term Loan. We may draw down the remaining $65.0 million under the 2021 Term Loan in a series of one or more advances of not less than $20.0 million each until December 15, 2021. Advances under the 2021 Term Loan bear interest at a rate equal to the greater of (i) 8.25% or (ii) 8.25% plus the prime rate, less 3.25% per annum. The principal balance and all accrued but unpaid interest on advances under the 2021 Term Loan is due on June 1, 2023, which date may be extended by us by up to two twelve-month periods. Advances under the 2021 Term Loan may not be prepaid until six-months after the Closing Date, following which we may prepay all such advances without charge.
In addition to the 2021 Term Loan, the amendment also extends the interest only payment period of the previously funded $35.0 million term loan from January 1, 2022 to June l, 2023.
COVID-19 measures
The coronavirus disease (“COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (“Sars-CoV 2 virus) was characterized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) on March 11, 2020. During late 2020 various, potentially more infectious, variants of the Sars-CoV 2 virus causing COVID-19 were identified.
Starting March 2020, we implemented measures to address the impact of COVID-19 on our business. We mandated a work-from-home policy for all non-essential employees at our Amsterdam and Lexington facilities when the pandemic began. We implemented a series of protocols governing the operations of our Lexington facility to comply with the requirements of the various orders and guidance from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other related orders, guidance, laws, and regulations. We supported our employees in setting up a healthy and efficient remote working environment. In conjunction with implementing this policy, we accelerated the roll-out of several information technology security measures, such as dual factor authentication, to address the increased risks to which we might be exposed as a result of remote working conditions. In addition, we conducted awareness training around cybersecurity for critical functions involved in making payments to vendors such as finance and supply chain. We continue to monitor local government rules and recommendations and office protocols will be aligned with these rules and recommendations.
We conduct frequent status video-meetings of local management at our two sites as well as leadership-team video meetings to implement these measures and to monitor the evolving situation. In addition, we inform our employees through periodic newsletters and have organized virtual local and global townhalls to share information and provide direction and support to our employees.
11
Table of Contents
We started to reopen the Amsterdam and Lexington facilities in phases, in line with the reopening plans that are prescribed by the local government. Between June 1, 2020 until September 29, 2020, we encouraged our Amsterdam employees to work a minimum of two days per week from the office, and approximately 50% of local staff worked on site during that period. As of September 29, 2020, we reinstated the mandatory work-from-home policy that was initiated in March in Amsterdam to align with the updated Dutch government’s measures. Employees based in Amsterdam who cannot perform their duties outside of our Amsterdam facility will continue to work at our Amsterdam facility. We adapted to operate our laboratories at our Amsterdam site to comply with social distancing rules and to ensure the health and wellbeing of our employees under the current circumstances. All other employees in Amsterdam will work from home through at least the end of August 2021, partly in conjunction with the ongoing expansion of our laboratory space.
As a biopharma research and development company, we were deemed to provide essential services under the “stay at home” advisory that was issued by the Governor of Massachusetts on March 23, 2020 and we therefore have maintained our manufacturing operations at our Lexington site. To ensure adequate social distancing in our Lexington facility, our COVID-19 protocols generally have limited occupancy to numbers below those allowed by the Massachusetts COVID-19 guidelines. In our Lexington facility, we currently have implemented an occupancy limitation of approximately 25%. Our employees that cannot perform their duties outside of our Lexington facility continue to work at our Lexington facility. All other employees are required to work remotely to the extent possible through at least the end of the second quarter of 2021. Our actual occupancy at the Lexington facility has been less than approximately 25% of our permitted occupancy during all phases of the Massachusetts reopening plan. We have also implemented a mandatory COVID-19 PCR testing protocol effective February 11, 2021 that requires employees to have tested negative for COVID-19 prior to entering the Lexington facility.
We have adapted our ongoing clinical research activities based on the directions and flexibility provided by the “FDA Guidance on Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products during COVID-19 Pandemic” issued on March 18, 2020 and updated throughout the pandemic to minimize any risk, disruption, or delay in either patient dosing or follow-up visits. These procedures occurred after a postponement that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated states of emergency declarations in the United States.
The broader implications of COVID-19 on our results of operations and overall financial performance remain uncertain. The COVID-19 pandemic and its adverse effects have become more prevalent in the locations where we, and our third-party business partners conduct business. While we have experienced disruptions in our operations as a result of COVID-19, we are adapting to the current environment to minimize the effect to our business. However, we may experience more pronounced disruptions in our operations in the future.
Organization
On September 14, 2020, we appointed Ricardo Dolmetsch, Ph.D. as President, Research and Development. Dr. Dolmetsch succeeded Sander van Deventer, M.D., Ph.D., our former Executive Vice President, Research and Product Development. On October 14, 2020, our Chief Medical Officer, Robert Gut, M.D., Ph.D., resigned to allow him to return as a non-executive director on our Board of Directors. Dr. Gut was appointed to our Board of Directors as a non-executive director at an extraordinary meeting of shareholders on December 1, 2020.
On June 17, 2020, our shareholders voted to approve the appointment of Leonard E. Post, Ph.D. as a non-executive director of the Board of Directors. Dr. Post replaced Dr. David Schaffer, whose term as a non-executive director of the Board of Directors ended on the same date. Dr. Post has also assumed the role of chair of our Research & Development Committee of the Board of Directors.
12
Table of Contents
Our Mission and Strategy
Our mission is to build an industry-leading, fully integrated, and global company that leverages its validated technology and manufacturing platform to deliver transformative gene therapy products to patients with serious unmet medical needs.
Our strategy to achieve this mission is to:
Advance the development of etranacogene dezaparvovec (AMT-061), a potentially best-in-class treatment of hemophilia B. Etranacogene dezaparvovec combines the potential advantages of AAV5 with an enhanced Padua-FIX transgene, and may provide optimized clinical and tolerability benefits to all, or nearly all patients with hemophilia B. In March 2020, we completed dosing of 54 patients in our Phase III HOPE-B pivotal study.
Maintain our leadership position in commercial-scale AAV manufacturing. We have established cGMP, commercial-scale manufacturing capabilities for AAV-based gene therapies in our state-of-the-art Lexington, Massachusetts facility. We believe the modularity of our platform provides us with distinct advantages, including the potential for reduced development risk and faster times to market.
Build a pipeline of gene therapy programs focused on rare and orphan diseases targeting liver-directed and central-nervous system (“CNS”) diseases. Beyond our lead clinical program for hemophilia B and our Huntington’s disease program, we have a pipeline of additional AAV-based gene therapy programs in various stages of preclinical development. We are leveraging our leading technology platform, which includes novel vectors, promoters, and manufacturing capabilities, to develop gene therapies primarily focused on rare, monogenic liver-directed, and CNS disorders as well as cardiovascular diseases.
Leverage the favorable immunogenicity profile of AAV5-based gene therapies to develop multiple products. We have developed extensive experience with our AAV5-based gene therapies, including in five clinical trials in multiple liver-directed and CNS diseases. During these clinical trials, no patient treated with AAV5-based gene therapies experienced a confirmed immune response to the AAV5 capsid or complications associated with T-cell activation. Additionally, the AAV5 capsid has demonstrated a low avidity to pre-existing neutralizing antibodies (“Nab”), which may enable all, or nearly all patients to be eligible for treatment with AAV5-based gene therapies.
Invest in next-generation technologies with the goal of enhancing safety, improving efficacy, and expanding the applicability of gene therapy to patients. We are developing proprietary technologies that have the potential to augment the safety and efficacy of our product candidates and broaden the applicability of our gene therapies to a wider range of diseases and patients. These technologies include (i) miQURE, our one-time administered gene silencing platform, (ii) tailored vectors, promoters, and other enhancers; (iii) optimized delivery and administration techniques; and (iv) novel transgenes. These technologies are developed both in-house by our experienced research team in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, as well as via collaborations with third parties.
Continue to expand our intellectual property portfolio. We have established what we believe is a leading intellectual property portfolio covering various aspects of our technology and programs, including (i) elements of our gene therapy constructs, such as AAV vectors, promoters and transgenes, including the novel Padua-FIX gene we utilize in etranacogene dezaparvovec for hemophilia B; (ii) innovative delivery technologies, such as re-administration of AAV gene therapy; and (iii) proprietary manufacturing processes covering key components of our upstream and downstream capabilities. We expect to continue to expand our intellectual property portfolio by aggressively seeking patent protection for promising aspects of our technology platform and product candidates.
13
Table of Contents
Our Product Candidates
A summary of our key development programs is provided below:
Liver-directed diseases
Hemophilia B (etranacogene dezaparvovec)
Hemophilia B Disease and Market Background
Hemophilia B is a serious and rare inherited disease in males characterized by insufficient blood clotting. The condition can lead to repeated and sometimes life-threatening episodes of external and internal bleeding following accidental trauma or medical interventions. Severe hemophilia is characterized by recurrent episodes of spontaneous joint bleeds that cause long-term damage to the joints resulting in disabling arthropathy. Bleeds may be fatal if they occur in the brain. The deficient blood clotting results from the lack of functional human Factor IX (“hFIX”). Treatment of hemophilia B today consists of prophylactic or on-demand protein replacement therapy, in which one to three times weekly intravenous administrations of plasma-derived or recombinant hFIX are required to prevent bleeding and once daily infusions in case bleeding occurs. Hemophilia B occurs in approximately 1 out of 30,000 live male births.
CSL Behring collaboration
On June 24, 2020, we entered into the CSL Behring Agreement pursuant to which CSL Behring would receive exclusive global rights to etranacogene dezaparvovec. Pursuant to the CSL Behring Agreement, we would be responsible for the completion of the HOPE-B clinical trial, manufacturing process validation, and the manufacturing supply of etranacogene dezaparvovec until such time that these capabilities may be transferred to CSL Behring or its designated contract manufacturing organization. Concurrently with the execution of the CSL Behring Agreement we and CSL Behring entered into a development and commercial supply agreement, pursuant to which, among other things, we would supply etranacogene dezaparvovec to CSL Behring at an agreed-upon price. Clinical development and regulatory activities performed by us pursuant to the CSL Behring Agreement would be reimbursed by CSL Behring. CSL Behring would be responsible for global regulatory submissions and commercialization requirements for etranacogene dezaparvovec. The CSL Behring Agreement continues to be subject to antitrust review in the U.S. and as such is not yet effective.
Our Development of etranacogene dezaparvovec for Hemophilia B
We are currently developing etranacogene dezaparvovec, a gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B that is designed to restore FIX activity, an essential protein for blood clotting. Etranacogene dezaparvovec includes an AAV5 vector incorporating the FIX-Padua variant (“FIX-Padua”). Etranacogene dezaparvovec is identical in structure to our first-generation hemophilia B product candidate, AMT-060, apart from two nucleotide substitutions in the coding sequence for FIX. The FIX-Padua variant expresses a protein with a single amino acid substitution that has been reported in multiple preclinical and nonclinical studies to provide an approximate eight-to nine-fold increase in FIX activity compared to the wild-type FIX protein, which was incorporated in AMT-060. All other critical quality attributes of AMT-061 are expected to be comparable to those of AMT-060, as AMT-061 utilizes the same AAV5 capsid and proprietary insect cell-based manufacturing platform.
14
Table of Contents
Etranacogene dezaparvovec is intended to be delivered by intravenous (“IV”)-infusion, without immunosuppressant therapy, through the peripheral vein in a single treatment session for approximately 30 minutes.
Our goal for etranacogene dezaparvovec is to develop a gene therapy with the following profile:
- long-term safety, including a favorable immunogenicity profile;
- predictable, sustained and potentially curative increases in FIX activity;
- significant reductions in both bleeding rates and the need for FIX replacement therapy; and
- broad patient eligibility, including the potential to treat all or nearly all patients with hemophilia B.
AAV5-based gene therapies have been used in a multitude of clinical trials, including five clinical trials conducted by us in patients with hemophilia B and other disorders. No patient treated in clinical trials with our AAV5-based gene therapies has experienced any confirmed, cytotoxic T-cell-mediated immune response to the capsid. An independent clinical trial has demonstrated that AAV5 has the lowest prevalence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies compared to other AAV vectors. Data from our clinical, preclinical, and nonclinical studies suggest that all, or nearly all patients may be eligible for treatment with etranacogene dezaparvovec.
The FDA has agreed that etranacogene dezaparvovec will fall under the existing Breakthrough Therapy Designation and IND for AMT-060, and the EMA has also agreed that etranacogene dezaparvovec will fall under the PRIME designation.
In June 2018, we initiated our Phase III HOPE-B pivotal trial of etranacogene dezaparvovec. The trial is a multinational, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etranacogene dezaparvovec.
In March 2020, we completed dosing of the 54 patients in the HOPE-B trial. The targeted number of patients to be dosed per the clinical trial protocol was 50. As set forth previously, we have implemented and continue to implement various measures to allow us to closely monitor the trial within the guidance provided by the FDA regarding the impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic to minimize any risk or disruption in patient follow-up visits. The adult hemophilia B patients, who were classified as severe or moderately severe, were enrolled in a six-month observational period prior to dosing during which time they continued to use their current standard of care to establish a baseline control. After the six-month lead-in period, patients received a single IV-administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Patients enrolled in the HOPE-B trial were tested for the presence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AAV5 but not excluded from the trial based on their titers. The primary endpoints of the study are based on the FIX activity level achieved following the administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec after 26 weeks and 52 weeks after dosing as well as annualized bleed rates during the 52 weeks after dosing.
In December 2020, we announced top-line data from the HOPE-B trial. The 26-week follow-up date from the trial showed that FIX activity in the 54 patients increased after dosing from ≤ 2% to a mean of 37.2% at 26 weeks, meeting a first primary endpoint of the HOPE-B trial. No correlation between pre-existing neutralizing antibodies and FIX activity was found in patients with neutralizing antibody titers up to 678.2, a range expected to include more than 95% of the general population; one patient with a neutralizing antibody titer of 3,212.3 did not show an increase in FIX activity. Less than 1% of the general population is expected to have neutralizing antibody titers of greater than 3,000.
15
Table of Contents
During the 26-week period after dosing, 15 patients (28%) reported a total of 21 bleeding events, representing a reduction of 83% compared to the 123 bleeding events reported by 38 patients (70%) during the observational lead-in phase of the trial. Total bleeds include any bleeding event reported after the treatment of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including spontaneous, traumatic, and those associated with unrelated medical procedures, whether or not FIX treatment was required. Of the total bleeding events reported during the 26-week period after dosing, only three were classified as spontaneous bleeds requiring treatment, representing a reduction of 92% compared to the 37 such bleeding events reported during the observational lead-in phase. Mean annualized usage of FIX replacement therapy, a secondary endpoint in the clinical trial, declined by 96% during the 26-week period after dosing compared to the observational lead-in phase. Etranacogene dezaparvovec was generally well-tolerated. As of the November 2020 cut-off date, most adverse events were classified as mild (81.5%). The most common events included transaminase elevation treated with steroids per protocol (9 patients; 17%), infusion-related reactions (7 patients; 13%), headache (7 patients; 13%) and influenza-like symptoms (7 patients; 13%). Liver enzyme elevations resolved with a tapering course of corticosteroids and FIX activity remained in the mild range in the steroid treated patients. No relationship between safety and neutralizing antibody titers was observed. Based on interactions with the FDA and the EMA, we plan to incorporate FIX activity and bleeding rates at 52 weeks as additional co-primary endpoints in the study.
On December 21, 2020, our clinical trials of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including our HOPE-B trial were placed on clinical hold by the FDA. The clinical hold was initiated following the submission of a safety report in mid-December relating to a possibly related serious adverse event associated with a preliminary diagnosis of HCC, a form of liver cancer, in one patient in the HOPE-B trial that was treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec in October 2019. The patient has multiple risk factors associated with HCC, including a twenty-five-year history of HCV, HBV, evidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and advanced age. Chronic infections with hepatitis B and C have been associated with approximately 80% of HCC cases.
The liver lesion was detected during a routine abdominal ultrasound conducted as part of the required study assessments in patients at one-year post dosing. A surgical resection of the lesion has occurred, and an analysis of the tissue samples was initiated in early 2021. On February 19, 2021, we reported initial results from this analysis to the FDA in accordance with pharmacovigilance requirements. We are gathering final data from these molecular analyses and will be preparing a detailed response to the FDA’s clinical hold questions regarding this event. Currently, we do not have adequate data to determine a possible causal relationship, especially in the context of the other known risk factors. We currently do not anticipate any impact on our regulatory submission timelines, including the filing of a BLA.
No other cases of HCC have been reported in our clinical trials conducted in more than 67 patients in hemophilia B, with some patients dosed more than 5 years ago.
In September 2018, we completed the dosing of a Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec. The Phase IIb study is an open-label, single-dose, single-arm, multi-center trial being conducted in the United States. The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of etranacogene dezaparvovec and confirm the dose based on FIX activity at six weeks after administration. Three patients with severe hemophilia were enrolled in this study and received a single intravenous infusion of 2x10 13 genome copies per kilogram (“gc/kg”). Patients were evaluated for the presence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AAV5 but were not excluded from the trial on this basis. We have followed the patients for more than two years to assess FIX activity, bleeding rates and usage of FIX replacement therapy, and will monitor the three patients for a total of five years to evaluate the safety of etranacogene dezaparvovec.
In December 2018, the study’s Data Monitoring Committee evaluated initial data from the Phase IIb study and confirmed the dose of 2x10 13 gc/kg for the Phase III pivotal trial.
16
Table of Contents
In February, May, July, and December 2019, and in December 2020, we presented updated data from the Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec. The most recent data that we announced in December 2020 from the Phase IIb study of etranacogene dezaparvovec show that all three patients experienced increasing and sustained FIX levels after a one-time administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Mean FIX activity was 44.2% of normal two years after administration, exceeding threshold FIX levels generally considered sufficient to significantly reduce the risk of bleeding events. The first patient achieved FIX activity of 44.7% of normal, the second patient was 51.6% of normal and the third patient was 36.3% of normal. The second and third patients had previously screen-failed and were excluded from another gene therapy study due to pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to a different AAV vector. At two years after dosing, two of the three participants remain free from bleeds and use of FIX replacement therapy. A single bleed has been reported in one participant, who has used a total of two FIX infusions (excluding surgery). All patients have remained free of prophylaxis in the two years since receiving etranacogene dezaparvovec.
Intellectual Property for etranacogene dezaparvovec
In 2017, we acquired intellectual property from Professor Paolo Simioni (“Dr. Simioni”), a hemophilia expert at the University of Padua, Italy. The intellectual property includes U.S. Patent Number 9,249,405, which covers compositions of FIX-Padua nucleic acids and polypeptides (proteins), as well as their therapeutic uses.
On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) granted us a second patent, U.S. Patent Number 9,982,248, which covers methods of treating coagulopathies (bleeding disorders), including hemophilia B, using AAV-based gene therapy with nucleic acid encoding the hyperactive FIX Padua variant. The FIX Padua variant is a FIX protein carrying a leucine at the R338 position, often called the "FIX-Padua" or "Padua mutant".
On November 5, 2019, the USPTO granted us a third patent, U.S. Patent Number 10,465,180, which covers any AAV comprising a nucleic acid encoding a FIX-Padua protein, and promoter sequences, transcription termination and control elements. The claims also cover FIX-Padua variants with at least 70% sequence identity to FIX-R338L.
In addition to the U.S. patents, on February 20, 2018, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office granted Patent Number 2,737,094, which covers FIX-Padua nucleic acids for use in gene therapy and FIX-Padua polypeptides for use in FIX replacement therapy.
On June 13, 2018, we were granted European Patent 2337849 directed to a FIX polypeptide protein. The opposition period with respect to such patent expired on March 13, 2019, by which time five parties had filed an opposition. On July 25, 2019, we submitted responses to such oppositions with the European Patent Office (“EPO”). Oral proceedings were scheduled for June and July 2020 but were postponed due to COVID-19. New dates for virtual oral proceedings have been set for May 2021. In addition, on May 15, 2019, a divisional European patent application in the FIX-Padua family, EP 3252157, was refused. In September 2019, we filed a notice of appeal with respect to such refusal. We are also pursuing a European divisional patent application that was filed on May 14, 2019. Both in the U.S. and in Europe, we have pending divisional applications still in prosecution phases. The appeal process has been delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we do not currently know when the appeal is likely to be resolved.
On January 4, 2020, a petition seeking Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,249,405 (the “’405 Patent”) was filed by Pfizer, Inc. (the “IPR Proceeding”). The petition sought to invalidate claims 6 and 9-15 of the ‘405 Patent. On April 17, 2020, we filed our preliminary response to the petition, disclaiming claims 6 and 9-13 of the ‘405 patent and otherwise requesting the denial of the petition. On July 13, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued its decision to institute the Inter Partes Review. On October 13, 2020, we filed a motion to amend the patent claims at issue in the proceeding. On January 13, 2021, Pfizer filed a brief in opposition to our motion to amend the claims. On February 3, 2021 the Patent Appeals Board of the USPTO (the “PTAB”) provided its preliminary guidance with respect to the proposed amended claims, which stated among other things that the proposed amended claims were not anticipated but were obvious in light of the cited prior art. On February 16, 2021 and in response to the preliminary guidance, we moved to dismiss our motion to amend the claims before the PTAB and requested an adverse judgement in the IPR Proceeding. As a result, we expect to maintain the currently issued and unchallenged claims of the ‘405 Patent and pursue additional claims based on our proposed amended claims in continuation applications before the USPTO.
17
Table of Contents
Phase I/II Clinical Trial of AMT-060
In the third quarter of 2015, we initiated a Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-060, our first-generation hemophilia B product candidate, in patients with severe or moderately-severe hemophilia B. AMT-060 consists of an AAV5 vector carrying a codon-optimized, wild-type, human FIX gene cassette licensed from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. The study is a five-year, open-label, uncontrolled, single-dose, dose-ascending multi-center trial that includes two cohorts, with the low-dose cohort using a treatment of 5x10 12 gc/kg and the second-dose cohort using 2x10 13 gc/kg. We enrolled five patients into the low dose cohort in the third quarter of 2015. Another five patients were enrolled into the high dose cohort between March and May 2016.
In December 2020, we presented five-year follow-up data related to this Phase I/II clinical trial. All 10 patients enrolled continue to show long-term clinical benefit, including sustained increases in FIX activity, reduced usage of FIX replacement therapy, and decreased bleeding frequency. At up to five years of follow-up, AMT-060 continues to be well-tolerated, with no new treatment-related adverse events since the last reported data and no development of inhibitors during the study.
All five patients in the second dose cohort of 2x10 13 gc/kg (the same dose being studied in the Phase III HOPE-B study of etranacogene dezaparvovec) continue to be free of routine FIX replacement therapy at four-and-a-half years after treatment. Based on the six months of data collected during the fifth year of follow-up, the mean annualized bleeding rate was zero compared to an average of four bleeds during the year prior to treatment, representing a 100% reduction. During this same period, the usage of FIX replacement therapy declined to zero compared to 354,800 IU in the year prior to treatment, representing a 100% reduction. Mean FIX activity over 4.5 years was 7.4% (compared to 7.5% at three and a half years, 7.9% in the third year, 8.4% in the second year and 7.1% in the first year), while in the lower dose cohort, mean FIX activity was 5.2% over 5 years since treatment.
Fabry disease program (AMT-190)
Fabry Disease and Market Background
Fabry disease is a progressive, inherited, multisystemic lysosomal storage disease characterized by specific neurological, cutaneous, renal, cardiovascular, cochleo-vestibular, and cerebrovascular manifestations. Fabry disease is caused by a defect in a gene that encodes for a protein called α-galactosidase A (“GLA”). The GLA protein is an essential enzyme required to breakdown globotriaosylsphingosine (“Gb3”) and lyso-globotriaosylsphingosine (“lyso-Gb3”). In patients living with Fabry disease, Gb3 and lyso-Gb3 accumulate in various cells throughout the body causing progressive clinical signs and symptoms of the disease. Current treatment options, which consist of bi-weekly intravenous enzyme replacement therapy, typically have no therapeutic benefit in patients with advanced renal or cardiac disease. Studies have also shown that a majority of male patients develop antibodies that inhibit the GLA protein and interfere with therapeutic efficacy.
Fabry disease has two major disease phenotypes: the type 1 “classic” and type 2 “later-onset” subtypes. Both lead to renal failure, and/or cardiac disease, and early death. Type 1 males have little or no functional a-Gal A enzymatic activity (<1% of normal mean) and marked accumulation of GL-3/Gb3 and related glycolipids in capillaries and small blood vessels which cause the major symptoms in childhood or adolescence. In contrast, males with the type 2 “later-onset” phenotype (previously called cardiac or renal variants) have residual a-Gal A activity, lack GL-3/Gb3 accumulation in capillaries and small blood vessels, and do not manifest the early manifestations of type 1 males. They experience an essentially normal childhood and adolescence. They typically present with renal and/or cardiac disease in the third to seventh decades of life. Most type 2 later-onset patients have been identified by enzyme screening of patients in cardiac, hemodialysis, renal transplant, and stroke clinics and recently by newborn screening. Fabry disease occurs in all racial and ethnic populations and affects males and females. It is estimated that type 1 classic Fabry disease affects approximately one in 40,000 males. The type 2 later-onset phenotype is more frequent, and in some populations may occur as frequently as about 1 in 1,500 to 4,000 males.
18
Table of Contents
Our Development of AMT-190 for Fabry Disease
In September 2020, we selected a lead gene therapy candidate (AMT-190) for the treatment of Fabry disease to advance into IND-enabling studies. The lead candidate is a one-time administered AAV5 gene therapy incorporating the GLA transgene. In preclinical studies comparing multiple product candidates, including constructs incorporating a modified alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase transgene (modNAGA), AMT-190 demonstrated the most robust and sustained increases in GLA activity.
Hemophilia A program (AMT-180)
In June 2020, we announced that we plan to de-prioritize our research program of AMT-180 for patients with hemophilia A, as part of our effort to focus on those gene therapy programs that have the greatest potential to improve patients’ lives and generate long-term value for shareholders.
19
Table of Contents
Central Nervous System diseases
Huntington’s Disease
Huntington’s Disease and Market Background
Huntington’s disease is a severe genetic neurodegenerative disorder causing loss of muscle coordination, behavioral abnormalities, and cognitive decline, often resulting in complete physical and mental deterioration over a 12 to 15-year period. The median survival time after onset is 15 to 18 years (range: 5 to >25 years). Huntington’s disease is caused by an inherited defect in a single gene that codes for a protein called Huntingtin (“HTT”). The prevalence of Huntington’s disease is three to seven per 100,000 in the general population, similar in men and women, and it is therefore considered a rare disease. Despite the ability to identify Huntington’s disease mutation carriers decades before onset, there is currently no available therapy that can delay onset or slow progression of the disease. Although some symptomatic treatments are available, they only are transiently effective despite significant side effects.
Our Development of AMT-130 for Huntington’s Disease
AMT-130 is our gene therapy candidate targeting Huntington’s disease that utilizes an AAV vector carrying an engineered micro ribonucleic acid (“miRNA”) designed to silence HTT and exon 1 HTT, a potentially highly toxic protein fragment that may also contribute to disease pathology. AMT-130 comprises a recombinant AAV5 vector carrying a deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) cassette, encoding a miRNA that non-selectively lowers or knocks-down HTT and exon 1 HTT in Huntington’s disease patients. AMT-130 was developed using our miQURE technology, a proprietary, one-time administered gene silencing platform. AMT-130 has received orphan drug designation from the FDA and Orphan Medicinal Product Designation from the EMA. AMT-130 is intended to be administered directly into the brain via a stereotactic, magnetic resonance imaging guided catheter.
Our goal for AMT-130 is to develop a gene therapy with the following profile:
(1) One-time administration of disease-modifying therapy into the striatum, the area of the brain where Huntington’s disease is known to manifest;
(2) Biodistribution of the therapy in both the deep and cortical structures of the brain via transport of the AAV vector and through secondary exosome-mediated delivery; and
(3) Safe, on-target and durable knockdown of HTT and exon 1 HTT.
In April 2018, we presented an overview of preclinical data establishing proof-of-concept for AMT-130 at the 2018 American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting in Los Angeles, California. Data from multiple studies in Huntington's disease animal models across three different species showed that a single intraparenchymal administration of AMT-130 into the striatum, resulted in a dose-dependent and sustained reduction of mutant huntingtin protein (“mHTT”) in both the deep structures of the brain and the cortex. Specifically, we presented data from the ongoing preclinical study in transgenic minipigs, one of the largest Huntington's disease animal models available, demonstrating significant reductions in human mHTT by a median of 68% in the striatum and a median of 47% in the frontal cortex at 6 months after administration of AMT-130.
In January 2019, our IND application for AMT-130 was cleared by the FDA and in the fourth quarter of 2019 we initiated patient screening for a Phase I/II study. The Phase I/II protocol is a randomized, imitation surgery-controlled, double-blinded study conducted at three surgical sites, and multiple referring, non-surgical sites in the U.S. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of AMT-130 at two doses.
In February 2019, we presented new preclinical data at the 14 th Annual CHDI Huntington’s disease Therapeutics Conference that illustrate the therapeutic potential of AMT-130 in restoring function of damaged brain cells in Huntington’s disease. In that study, AMT-130 was generally well-tolerated and resulted in a sustained reduction of mutant huntingtin protein.
20
Table of Contents
In June 2020, we announced the completion of the first two patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease. These procedures occurred after a postponement that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated states of emergency declarations in the United States. The Phase I/II protocol is a randomized, imitation surgery-controlled, double-blinded study conducted at three surgical sites, and multiple referring, non-surgical sites in the U.S. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AMT-130 at two doses.
On September 25, 2020, we announced that the independent DSMB overseeing the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease had met and reviewed 90-day safety data from the first two patients enrolled in the trial. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing.
On October 13, 2020, we announced the completion of the third and fourth patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial.
On February 8, 2021, we announced that the DSMB had met and reviewed the six-month safety data from the first two enrolled patients and the 90-day safety data from the next two enrolled patients in the study. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing, and the final six patients in the first cohort are now cleared for enrollment.
Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 3 program
Spinocerebellar Ataxia type 3 and Market Background
Spinocerebellar Ataxia type 3 (“SCA3”), also known as Machado-Joseph disease, is a central nervous system disorder caused by a cytosine-adenine-guanine (“CAG”)-repeat expansion in the ATXN3 gene that results in an abnormal form of the protein ataxin-3. Patients with SCA3 experience brain degeneration that results in movement disorders, rigidity, muscular atrophy, and paralysis. There is currently no treatment available that slows the progressive course of this potentially lethal disease.
Prevalence of SCA3 is estimated to be one to two per 100,000 with significant geographical and ethnic variations, with the highest prevalence rates observed in the Azores (Flores Island (1/239)), the intermediate prevalence rates observed in Portugal, Germany, the Netherlands, China and Japan, and the lower prevalence observed in North America, Australia, and India. SCA3 is the most common form of autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia (“ADCA”) type 1 in most genetically characterized populations.
Our preclinical SCA3 program (AMT-150)
AMT-150 is a one-time, intrathecally-administered, AAV gene therapy incorporating our proprietary miQURE silencing technology that is designed to halt ataxia in early manifest SCA3 patients. In an in-vitro study with human induced pluripotent stem (“IPS”) derived neurons, AMT-150 has been shown to lower the human ataxin-3 protein by 65%, without any off-target effects. We also performed a proof-of-concept in-life study in SCA3 mice demonstrating that AMT-150 was able to lower toxic ataxin-3 protein by up to 53% in the cerebellum and up to 65% in the brain stem after a single administration. Further studies in non-human primates (“NHP”) demonstrate the ability to distribute and express a reporter gene in the most degenerated brain regions in SCA3. In these preclinical studies, a single administration of AMT-150 resulted in sustained expression and efficient processing with on-target engagement. Additionally, AMT-150 lacked off-target activity in these studies.
At the 2019 American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting, we presented preclinical data on AMT-150 demonstrating mechanistic proof-of-concept of the non-allele-specific ataxin-3 protein-silencing approach by using artificial miRNA candidates engineered to target the ataxin-3 gene in a SCA3 knock-in mouse model. In this proof-of-concept study, a single AMT-150 injection in the cerebrospinal fluid resulted in AAV transduction and mutant ataxin-3 lowering at the primary sites of disease neuropathology, the cerebellum (up to 53%) and the brainstem (up to 65%).
21
Table of Contents
In May 2020, we presented preclinical data at the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (“ASGCT”) Annual Meeting, on our gene therapy candidate SCA3. In an in vivo preclinical study, six NHP received a one-time injection of AMT-150 via the cisterna magna to assess expression and distribution. Samples taken after eight weeks showed widespread transduction of the brain and spinal cord, with the highest genome copies found in the posterior fossa and cortical regions. In other preclinical studies, researchers evaluated AMT-150 in SCA3 mouse models, as well as human induced pluripotent stem cell (“iPSC”)-derived neurons and astrocytes, to investigate potential off-target effects of AAV5-micro ataxin type 3 (“miATXN3”). The iPSC-derived cell cultures, which were derived from two SCA3 patients, represent the most disease-relevant cell type for therapeutic targeting of AMT-150. A clear dose-dependent expression of miATXN3 was observed in the iPSC-derived neurons and astrocytes transduced with AMT-150. Mature miATXN3 molecules were also associated with extracellular vesicles that strongly correlated with the dose and miATXN3 expression, suggesting the potential therapeutic spread of the engineered miATXN3. Additionally, AMT-150 demonstrated ATXN3 knockdown in human neurons and various SCA3 mouse models with subsequent neuropathology improvement.
In September 2020, we initiated a safety and toxicology study of AMT-150 in NHP.
New Technology Development
We are seeking to develop next-generation technologies with the goal of further improving the potential of AAV-based gene therapies to treat patients suffering from debilitating diseases.
We are focused on innovative technologies across each of the key components of an AAV-based gene therapy, including: (i) the capsid, or the outer viral protein shell that encloses the target DNA; (ii) the promoter, or the DNA sequence that drives the expression of the transgene; and (iii) the transgene, or therapeutic gene.
We dedicate significant effort to designing and screening novel AAV capsids with the potential for (i) higher biological potency; (ii) increased specificity and penetration of specific tissue types; and (iii) enhanced safety. We believe we have significant expertise in vector engineering and have created promising genetically engineered capsids using a “rational design” approach.
In addition to the directed evolution approach where we screen a library of AAV mutants, we are also rationally engineering the AAV capsids to target them to specific cells and/or tissues. Using such engineered AAV capsids will ensure selected transduction of the targeted, desired cell type. The strategy will diminish potential off target effects.
We work extensively on designing synthetic promoters with the potential of enabling higher levels of protein expression in specific tissue types. A “promoter” is an essential component of a gene therapy construct that controls expression of a therapeutic protein. Synthetic promoters, which do not exist in nature, are optimally tailored to drive gene expression at a desired level and specificity.
To further tailor gene therapies to optimally address certain disorders we may also incorporate specific modifications into the transgenes of our gene therapy constructs. For example, we incorporated the Padua-FIX variant into our hemophilia B gene therapy to substantially increase the resulting FIX activity and potentially improve clinical outcomes. For other programs, such as our gene therapy construct for Fabry disease, we have also utilized modified transgenes with the goal of enhancing efficacy, durability, and safety, as well as expanding the access of gene therapies to patients with inhibitors.
We have also demonstrated the ability to deliver engineered DNA constructs that can silence or suppress disease-causing genes. Our miQURE gene silencing platform, based on exclusively licensed technology from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (“CSHL”), is designed to degrade mutated genes without off-target toxicity and induce silencing of the mutated gene in the entire target organ through secondary exosome-mediated delivery. miQURE-based gene therapy candidates, such as AMT-130, incorporate proprietary, therapeutic miRNA constructs that can be delivered using AAVs to potentially provide long-lasting activity. Preclinical studies of miQURE-based gene therapies have demonstrated several important advantages, including enhanced tissue-specificity, improved nuclear and cytoplasmic gene lowering and no off-target effects associated with impact to the cellular miRNA or messenger RNA transcriptome.
22
Table of Contents
Commercial-Scale Manufacturing Capabilities
The ability to reliably produce at a high quality and at commercial scale is a critical success factor in AAV gene therapy. We produce our gene therapies at our state-of-the-art, Lexington, Massachusetts-based manufacturing facility using a proprietary baculovirus expression vector system.
We believe our integrated manufacturing capabilities provide us several potential advantages, including:
(1) Know-how. Since our founding in 1998, we have invested heavily in developing optimized processes and methods to reliably and reproducibly manufacture AAV-based gene therapies at commercial scale. During this time, we have accumulated significant internal experience and knowledge of the underlying production technology and critical quality attributes of our products. These learnings have been essential in developing a modular, third generation production system that can be used to produce all our gene therapy products.
(2) Flexibility. Controlling cGMP manufacturing allows us to rapidly adapt our production schedule to meet the needs of our business. By controlling our manufacturing, we do not rely on contract manufacturers, nor do we require costly and time-consuming technology transfers to third parties. Our facility is designed to commercially supply multiple products and are flexibly designed to accommodate expansion and scale up as our needs change.
(3) Faster Path to Market. We believe our manufacturing platform enables us to rapidly produce new products for clinical investigation, minimize time between clinical phases and complete scale-up as product candidates advance into late-stage development and commercialization. For example, in transitioning our hemophilia B program from AMT-060 to AMT-061, we were able to rapidly demonstrate manufacturing comparability and produce clinical material for our ongoing Phase III pivotal study, thereby accelerating our time to market.
(4) High Purity. The baculovirus system eliminates the risk of introducing mammalian cell derived impurities.
(5) Scalability. We have demonstrated our manufacturing process is reproducible at volumes ranging from 2 liters to 500 liters and believe it is possible to achieve higher scale production with our insect-cell, baculovirus system.
(6) Low Cost of Goods. We believe our ability to scale production has the potential to significantly reduce unit costs. Our manufacturing process also utilizes fully disposable components, which enables faster change-over times between batches and lower costs associated with cleaning and sterilization. Additionally, our production system does not require the use of plasmids, which can be a costly raw material.
Intellectual Property
Introduction
We strive to protect the proprietary technologies that we believe are important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patent protection in the United States, Europe, and other countries for novel components of gene therapies, the chemistries, and processes for manufacturing these gene therapies, the use of these components in gene therapies, our technology platform, and other inventions and related technology. We also rely on trade secrets, security measures and careful monitoring of our proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.
We expect that our probability of success will be significantly enhanced by our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our patents, maintain our licenses to use intellectual property owned by third parties, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of AAV-based gene therapies.
In some cases, we are dependent on the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to develop and commercialize our products. We must obtain licenses from such third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed, possibly materially. For example, we license from third parties essential parts of the therapeutic gene cassettes as well as the principal AAV vectors we use and key elements of our manufacturing process. We anticipate that we will require additional licenses in the future.
23
Table of Contents
Because most patent applications throughout the world are confidential for 18 months after the earliest claimed priority date, and since the publication of discoveries in the scientific and patent literature often lags actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to invent or file applications for the inventions covered by our pending patent applications. Moreover, we may have to participate in post-grant proceedings in the patent offices of the United States or foreign jurisdictions, such as oppositions, reexaminations, or interferences, in which the patentability or priority of our inventions are challenged. Such proceedings could result in substantial cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.
Our intellectual property portfolio consists of owned and in-licensed patents, copyrights, licenses, trademarks, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights.
Patent Portfolio
Our gene therapy programs are protected by patents and patent applications directed to various aspects of our technology. For example, our gene therapy programs are protected by patents and patent applications with composition-of-matter or method of use claims that cover the therapeutic gene, the promoter, the viral vector capsid, or other specific parts of these technologies. We also seek protection of core aspects of our manufacturing process, particularly regarding our baculovirus expression system for AAV vectors in insect cells. In addition, we have filed manufacturing patent applications with claims directed to alternative compositions-of-matter and manufacturing processes to seek better protection from competitors.
We file the initial patent applications for our commercially important technologies in both Europe and the United States. For the same technologies, we typically file international patent applications under the PCT within a year. We also may seek, usually on a case-by-case basis, local patent protection in Canada, Australia, Japan, China, India, Israel, South Africa, New Zealand, South Korea, and Eurasia, as well as South American jurisdictions such as Brazil and Mexico.
As of December 31, 2020, our intellectual property portfolio included 99 issued or granted patents and 121 pending patent applications. The geographic breakdown of our owned and exclusively in-licensed patent portfolio was as follows:
● 26 issued U.S. patents;
● 13 granted European patents;
● 7 pending PCT patent applications;
● 18 pending U.S. patent applications;
● 20 pending European patent applications; and
● 83 pending and 60 granted patent applications in other jurisdictions.
These patents relate to a variety of technologies including our product candidates that are in development and our manufacturing and technology platform.
24
Table of Contents
Our Patent Portfolio Related to Certain Development Programs
Hemophilia B (AMT-061)
We own a patent family, including patents and patent applications, directed to the use of the Padua mutation in hFIX for gene therapy in etranacogene dezaparvovec. A PCT application was filed on September 15, 2009, and patents have been issued in the United States, Europe, and Canada. Further applications are pending in the United States (three issued patents), Europe, and Hong Kong. The issued patents include claims directed to FIX protein with a leucine at the R338 position of the protein sequence, nucleic acid sequences coding for this protein, and therapeutic applications, including gene therapy. The standard 20-year patent term of patents in this family will expire in 2029.
On June 13, 2018, we were granted European Patent 2337849 directed to a polypeptide protein. The opposition period with respect to such patent expired on March 13, 2019, by which time five parties had filed an opposition. On July 25, 2019, we submitted responses to such oppositions with the EPO and oral proceedings with respect to such oppositions were scheduled for June and July 2020 but were postponed due to COVID-19. New dates for virtual oral proceedings have been set for May 2021. In addition, on May 15, 2019, a divisional European patent application in the FIX-Padua family, EP 3252157, was refused. In September 2019, we filed a notice of appeal with respect to such refusal. We are also pursuing a European divisional patent application that was filed on May 14, 2019. Both in the U.S. and in Europe, we have pending divisional applications still in prosecution phases. The appeal process has been delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we do not currently know when the appeal is likely to be resolved.
On November 5, 2019, the USPTO granted us a third patent, U.S. Patent Number 10,465,180, which covers any AAV comprising a nucleic acid encoding a FIX-Padua protein, and promoter sequences, transcription termination and control elements. The claims also cover FIX-Padua variants with at least 70% sequence identity to FIX-R338L.
On January 4, 2020, the IPR Proceeding was filed by Pfizer, Inc. The petition sought to invalidate claims 6 and 9-15 of the ‘405 Patent. On April 17, 2020, we filed our preliminary response to the petition, disclaiming claims 6 and 9-13 of the ‘405 patent and otherwise requesting the denial of the petition. On July 13, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued its decision to institute the Inter Partes Review. On October 13, 2020, we filed a motion to amend the patent claims at issue in the proceeding. On January 13, 2021, Pfizer filed its opposition to our motion to amend the claims. On February 3, 2021 the PTAB provided its preliminary guidance with respect to the proposed amended claims, which stated among other things that the proposed amended claims were not anticipated but were obvious in light of the cited prior art. On February 16, 2021 and in response to the preliminary guidance, we moved to dismiss our motion to amend the claims before the PTAB and requested an adverse judgement in the IPR Proceeding. As a result, we expect to maintain the currently issued and unchallenged claims of the ‘405 Patent and pursue additional claims based on our proposed amended claims in continuation applications before the USPTO.
Huntington’s disease (AMT-130)
We own a patent family directed to gene therapy treatment of Huntington’s disease within AMT-130. This family includes an issued patent in the United States and pending patent applications in the US, Europe, and other jurisdictions. The standard 20-year term of patents in this family will expire in 2035.
In May 2019, we announced the issuance of two new patents covering AMT-130, U.S. Patent 10,174,321 and European Patent EP 3237618 B1. The claims as granted cover the RNA constructs specifically designed to target exon1 and the embedding of these Huntington’s disease RNA sequences into the miR451 scaffold, which is exclusively licensed to us from CSHL. The claims also cover certain expression cassettes comprising the RNA constructs and the use of gene therapy vectors including AAV vectors encompassing the described expression cassettes. In addition, this patent family has multiple pending family members, including pending applications in U.S. and Europe.
AMT-130 incorporates our proprietary miQURE gene silencing technology platform, which is designed to degrade disease-causing genes, without off-target toxicity, and induce silencing of the entire target organ through secondary exosome-mediated delivery. We have filed additional patent applications related to this technology generally and AMT-130, specifically which will potentially provide further patent protection for our Huntington’s disease clinical candidate AMT-130.
25
Table of Contents
Licenses
We have obtained exclusive or non-exclusive rights from third parties under a range of patents and other technology that we use in our product and development programs, as described below. Our agreements with these third parties generally grant us a license to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and import products covered by the licensed patent rights in exchange for our payment of some combination of an upfront amount, annual fees, royalties, a percentage of amounts we receive from our licensees and payments upon the achievement of specified development, regulatory or commercial milestones. Some of the agreements specify the extent of the efforts we must use to develop and commercialize licensed products. The agreements generally expire upon expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim of the licensed patents. Each licensor may terminate the applicable agreement if we materially breach our obligations and fail to cure the breach within a specified cure period.
Technology Used for Multiple Programs
We are exploiting technology from third-party sources described below in more than one of our programs.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
In 2015, we entered into a license agreement with CSHL in which CSHL granted to us an exclusive, sublicensable license to develop and commercialize certain of CSHL’s patented RNAi-related technology for use in connection with the treatment or prevention of Huntington’s disease. The standard 20-year patent term for the licensed patents expires in 2031.
In 2018, we entered into an amendment of the license agreement with CSHL that expanded the license to include the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of all CNS diseases in the Field, including but not limited to Huntington’s disease. In addition, under the amended license agreement CSHL granted to us an exclusive license for a three-year term to develop and commercialize therapeutic products for the additional disease classifications in the Field of liver diseases, neuromuscular diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. If we meet certain diligence milestones during the initial three-year development term, we may include exclusively additional disease classifications within the additional Fields on similar terms and conditions as the CNS diseases. We are currently using the technology in our Huntington’s disease and SCA 3 programs.
Under this license agreement, annual fees, development milestone payments and future single-digit royalties on net sales of a licensed product are payable to CSHL.
Protein Sciences
In 2016, we revised our existing license contract with Protein Sciences Corporation for the use of its expresSF + insect cell line and associated technology for human therapeutic and prophylactic uses (except influenza) to provide us with a royalty free, perpetual right and license to the licensed technology in the field of AAV-based gene therapy.
Technology Used for Specific Development Programs
Hemophilia B
National Institutes of Health—AAV production
In 2007, we entered into a non-exclusive license agreement with the NIH, which we amended in 2009 and 2013. The patents under this license cover technology to produce AAV vectors in insect cells. We may only grant sublicenses under this agreement with the NIH’s consent, which may not be unreasonably withheld. The standard 20-year term for the underlying patents will expire in 2022.
Payment obligations to the NIH under this license agreement include a low single-digit percentage royalty on the net sales of licensed products by us or on our behalf; development and regulatory milestone payments; and an annual maintenance fee creditable against royalties. We do not have to pay royalties or milestone fees under this agreement if we must pay royalties or milestone fees under our 2011 agreement with the NIH, described below, for the same product. Under the license agreement, we have agreed to meet benchmarks in our development efforts, including as to development events, clinical trials, and marketing approval, within specified timeframes.
26
Table of Contents
The NIH may terminate this agreement in specified circumstances relating to our insolvency or bankruptcy. We may terminate this agreement for any reason, in any territory, subject to a specified notice period.
National Institutes of Health—AAV5
In 2011, we entered into another license agreement with the NIH, superseding an earlier agreement. This agreement was amended in 2016. Under this agreement, the NIH granted us an exclusive, worldwide license to patents relating to AAV5 for use in therapeutic products to be delivered to the brain or liver for treatment of human diseases originating in the brain or liver but excluding arthritis-related diseases, and a non-exclusive, worldwide license to patents relating to AAV5 for all other diseases. The license technology under the patents of this license is also used in connection with the Huntington’s disease program. We refer to the products licensed under this agreement as AAV5 products. We may grant sublicenses under this agreement only with the NIH’s consent, which may not be unreasonably withheld. The standard 20-year term for the underlying patents expired in 2019, but there are U.S. patents still in force of which the latest will expire in 2021.
Payment obligations to the NIH under this license agreement include royalties equal to a low single-digit percentage of net sales of AAV5 products; development and regulatory milestone payments; and an annual maintenance fee creditable against royalties. If an AAV5 product is also covered by our 2007 agreement with the NIH, our obligation to pay royalties on net sales and our obligation to pay milestone fees only apply under this 2011 agreement and not the 2007 agreement. We have agreed to meet benchmarks in our development efforts, including as to development events, clinical trials, and marketing approval, within specified timeframes.
The NIH may terminate this agreement in specified circumstances relating to our insolvency or bankruptcy. We may terminate this agreement for any reason, in any country or territory, subject to a specified notice period.
Padua
On April 17, 2017, we entered into an Assignment and License Agreement with Dr. Simioni (the “Padua Assignment”). Pursuant to the Padua Assignment, we acquired from Dr. Simioni all right, title and interest in a patent family covering the variant of the FIX gene, carrying an R338L mutation (FIX-Padua; “Padua IP”). Under the Padua Assignment, we have also licensed certain know-how included in the Padua IP. We will provide Dr. Simioni with an initial license fee and reimbursement of past expenses, as well as payments that may come due upon the achievement of certain milestone events related to the development of the Padua IP and may also include royalties on a percentage of certain revenues. We have granted a license of the Padua IP back to Dr. Simioni for therapeutic or diagnostic use of a modified Factor IX protein (other than in connection with gene therapy) and any application for non-commercial research purposes. We have agreed to indemnify Dr. Simioni for claims arising from our research, development, manufacture, or commercialization of any product making use of the Padua IP, subject to certain conditions. The Padua Assignment will remain in effect, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to the terms of the Padua Assignment, until the later of (i) the expiration date of the last of the patents within the Padua IP and (ii) the expiration of the payment obligations under the Padua Assignment.
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
In 2008, we entered into a license agreement with St. Jude, which we amended in 2012. Under this license agreement, St. Jude has granted us an exclusive license, with a right to sublicense, to patent rights relating to expression of hFIX in gene therapy vectors, to make, import, distribute, use, and commercialize products containing hFIX covered by a valid patent claim in the field of gene therapy for treatment or prophylaxis of hemophilia B. In addition, we have a first right of negotiation regarding any patent applications that are filed by St. Jude for any improvements to the patent rights licensed to us. The U.S. patent rights will expire in 2028 and the European patents will expire in 2025.
We have agreed to pay St. Jude a royalty equal to a low single-digit percentage of net sales, if any, by us or our sublicensees of products covered by the licensed patent rights, and a portion of certain amounts we receive from sublicensees ranging from a mid-single digit to a mid-teen double-digit percentage of such amounts. We have also agreed to pay St. Jude one-time milestone fees totaling $6.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, and an annual maintenance fee creditable against royalties and milestones in the same year. We have agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to diligently develop and commercialize products licensed under this agreement.
27
Table of Contents
The agreement will remain in effect until no further payment is due relating to any licensed product under this agreement or either we or St. Jude exercise our rights to terminate it. St. Jude may terminate the agreement in specified circumstances relating to our insolvency. We may terminate the agreement for convenience at any time subject to a specified notice period.
Trade Secrets
In addition to patents and licenses, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. For example, significant aspects of the process by which we manufacture our gene therapies are based on unpatented trade secrets and know-how. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes and obtain and maintain ownership of certain technologies, in part, through confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and commercial collaborator. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets and know-how by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.
Trademarks
We have a number of material registered trademarks, including “uniQure”, that we have registered in various jurisdictions including the United States and the European Union. We may seek trademark protection for other product candidates and technologies as and when appropriate.
Competition
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the gene therapy field, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We face substantial competition from many different sources, including large and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions.
We are aware of numerous companies focused on developing gene therapies in various indications, including Applied Genetic Technologies Corp., Abbvie, Abeona Therapeutics, Adverum Biotechnologies, Ally Therapeutics, Apic Bio, Asklepios BioPharmaceutical, Astellas, AVROBIO, Bayer, Biogen, BioMarin, bluebird bio, CRISPR Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Expression Therapeutics, Fate, Freeline Therapeutics, Generation Bio, Genethon, GlaxoSmithKline, Homology Medicines, Intellia Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, Krystal Biotech, Lexeo Therapeutics, LogicBio Therapeutics, Lysogene, MeiraGTx, Milo Biotechnology, Mustang Bio, Novartis, Orchard Therapeutics, Oxford Biomedica, Passage Bio, Pfizer, REGENXBIO, Renova Therapeutics, Roche, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Sangamo Therapeutics, Sanofi, Selecta Biosciences, Sarepta Therapeutics, Sio Therapeutics, Solid Biosciences, SwanBio, Takeda, Taysha Gene Therapies, Ultragenyx, Vivet Therapeutics, and Voyager Therapeutics, as well as several companies addressing other methods for modifying genes and regulating gene expression. We may also face competition with respect to the treatment of some of the diseases that we are seeking to target with our gene therapies from protein, nucleic acid, antisense, RNAi and other pharmaceuticals under development or commercialized at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies such as Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BioMarin, CSL Behring, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Translate Bio, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, Takeda, WaVe Life Sciences, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms.
We also compete with existing standards of care, therapies, and symptomatic treatments, as well as any new therapies that may become available in the future for the indications we are targeting.
Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaborators, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and gene therapy 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.
28
Table of Contents
The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payers. We also believe that, due to the small size of the patient populations in the orphan indications we target, being first to market will be a significant competitive advantage. We believe that our advantages in vector and manufacturing technology will allow us to reach market in a number of indications ahead of our competitors, and to capture the markets in these indications.
Government Regulation and Reimbursement
Government authorities in the United States, European Union and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the approval, research, development, preclinical and clinical testing, manufacture (including any manufacturing changes), packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, reimbursement, and import and export of pharmaceutical products, biological products, and medical devices. We believe that all our product candidates will be regulated as biological products, or biologics, and in particular, as gene therapies, and will be subject to such requirements and regulations under U.S. and foreign laws. For other countries outside of the United States and the European Union, marketing approval and pricing and reimbursement requirements vary from country to country. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, refusal to approve pending applications, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecution.
Regulation in the United States
In the United States, the FDA regulates biologics under the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and regulations and guidance implementing these laws. These laws and regulatory guidance are continually evolving. By example, in March 2020, the U.S. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which includes various provisions regarding FDA drug shortage reporting requirements, as well as provisions regarding supply chain security, such as risk management plan requirements, and the promotion of supply chain redundancy and domestic manufacturing. The FDA has also issued a number of guidance documents concerning how sponsors and investigators may address COVID-19 challenges, including challenges specific to gene therapies. These guidance documents are continually evolving.
Obtaining regulatory approvals and ensuring compliance with applicable statutes and regulatory requirements entails the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources, including payment of user fees for applications to the FDA. All our current product candidates are subject to regulation by the FDA as biologics. An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States must typically undertake the following:
● completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practice regulations;
● submission to the FDA of an IND application which allows human clinical trials to begin unless the FDA objects within 30 days; the sponsor of an IND or its legal representative must be based in the United States
● approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”) and Institutional Biosafety Committee (“IBC”) before each clinical trial may be initiated;
● performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with the FDA’s current good clinical practices (“cGCP”) to establish substantial evidence of the proposed biological product for each indication;
● preparation and submission to the FDA of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”);
● satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product, or components thereof, are produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods, and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity, as well as selected clinical trial sites and investigators to determine cGCP compliance;
● approval of the BLA by the FDA, in consultation with an FDA advisory committee, if deemed appropriate by the FDA; and
● compliance with any post-approval commitments, including Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”), and post-approval studies required by the FDA.
29
Table of Contents
Human Clinical Studies in the United States under an IND
Before initiating clinical studies in the United States or under an IND, investigational product sponsors must first complete pre-clinical studies. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity, and product formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Such studies must generally be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practices (“GLPs”).
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational biologic to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with current GCP requirements, which includes requirements for informed consent, study conduct, and IRB review and approval. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. INDs include preclinical study reports, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data, or literature, and proposed clinical study protocols among other things . A clinical trial may not proceed in the United States unless and until an IND becomes effective, which is 30 days after its receipt by the FDA. The FDA may raise concerns or questions related to one or more components of an IND and place the IND on clinical hold if during its review the FDA determines that study subjects would be exposed to significant risk of illness or injury the trial may be put on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance.
The protocol and informed consent documents, as well as other subject communications must also be approved by an IRB that continues to oversee that trial. In the case of gene therapy studies, an IBC at the local level must also review and maintain oversight over the particular study, in addition to the IRB. The FDA, an IRB, and IBC, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that research requirements are not being met. Information about certain clinical trials, including results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for listing on the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Sponsors or distributors of investigational products for the diagnosis, monitoring, or treatment of one or more serious diseases or conditions must also have a publicly available policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access requests. Investigators must also provide certain information to the clinical trial sponsors to allow the sponsors to make certain financial disclosures to the FDA.
Subsequent clinical protocols and amendments must also be submitted to an active IND but are not subject to the 30-day review period imposed on an original IND. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must also be submitted at least annually to the FDA and the IRB and more frequently if serious adverse events or other significant safety information is found. There is a risk that once a new protocol or amendment is submitted to an active IND there may be an extended period before the FDA may comment or provide feedback. This may result in a need to modify an ongoing clinical trial to incorporate this feedback or even a clinical hold of the trial. There is also risk that FDA may not provide comments or feedback but may ultimately disagree with the design of the study once a BLA is submitted.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:
● Phase I: The biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early understanding of its effectiveness.
● Phase II: The biological product is administered to a limited patient population to further identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.
● Phase III: The biological product is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to generate sufficient data to statistically confirm the potency and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product and to provide adequate information for the labelling of the product. Typically, two Phase 3 trials are required by the FDA for product approval. Under some limited circumstances, however, the FDA may approve a BLA based upon a single Phase 3 clinical study plus confirmatory evidence or a single large multicenter trial without confirmatory evidence.
30
Table of Contents
In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or BLA supplement for a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosage regimen, or route of administration, must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Orphan products are also exempt from the PREA requirements.
The manufacture of investigational drugs and biologics for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to cGMP requirements. Investigational drugs and biologics and active ingredients and therapeutic substances imported into the United States are also subject to regulation by the FDA. Further, the export of investigational products outside of the United States is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FDCA.
Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate 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 product candidate and, among other things, manufacturers must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency, and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
FDA Guidance Governing Gene Therapy Products
The FDA has issued various guidance documents regarding gene therapies that outline additional factors that the FDA will consider at each of the above stages of development and which relate to, among other things, the proper preclinical assessment of gene therapies; the chemistry, manufacturing, and control information that should be included in an IND application; the design and analysis of shedding studies for virus or bacteria based gene therapies; the proper design of tests to measure product potency in support of an IND or BLA application; and measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects and patients who have been exposed to gene therapies via long-term follow-up with associated regulatory reporting.
Compliance with cGMP Requirements
Manufacturers of biologics must comply with applicable cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of such products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and provide the FDA a list of products manufactured at the facilities. Recently, the information that must be submitted to the FDA regarding manufactured products was expanded through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or CARES, Act to include the volume of drugs produced during the prior year. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Discovery of non-compliance may result in the FDA placing restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, and may extend to requiring withdrawal of the product from the market, among other consequences. The FDA will not approve an application 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.
FDA Programs to Expedite Product Development
The FDA has several programs to expedite product development, including fast track designation and breakthrough therapy designation. These are outlined in specific FDA guidance. Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a biologic candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a fast track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND for the product candidate. To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine that a product candidate is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. This may be demonstrated by clinical or nonclinical data. If granted, the benefits include greater interactions with the FDA and rolling review of sections of the BLA. In some cases, a fast track product may be eligible for accelerated approval or priority review.
31
Table of Contents
Moreover, under the provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, enacted in 2012, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a breakthrough therapy. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Products designated as breakthrough therapies are eligible for rolling review, intensive guidance on an efficient development program beginning as early as Phase 1 trials, and a commitment from the FDA to involve senior managers and experienced review staff in a proactive collaborative, cross disciplinary review.
Biologics studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means the FDA may approve the product based upon 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. A biologic candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, will allow the FDA to withdraw the drug or biologic from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for drug or biologic candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.
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.
Submission of a BLA
The results of the preclinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting a license to market the product for one or more indications. The submission of a BLA is subject to an application user fee, products with orphan designation are exempt from the BLA filing fee. The sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual program user fees for each. Orphan products may also be exempt from program fees provided that certain criteria are met. These fees are typically increased annually. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) the FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review of BLAs.
Most such applications are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the filing acceptance date (typically 60 days after date of filing), and most applications for priority review products are meant to be reviewed within six months of the filing acceptance date (typically 60 days after date of filing). Priority review designation may be assigned to product candidates that are intended to treat serious conditions and, if approved, would provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of the serious condition.
The FDA may refuse to file an application and request additional information. In this event, the application must be refiled with the additional information. The refiled application is also subject to assessment of content before the FDA accepts it for review. Once the submission is accepted, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA will assign a date for its final decision for the product (the PDUFA action date) but can extend this date to complete review of a product application. The PDUFA action date is only a goal, thus, the FDA does not always meet its PDUFA dates.
The FDA may also refer certain applications to an advisory committee. Before approving a product candidate for which no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of active ingredients) has previously been approved by the FDA, the FDA must either refer that product candidate to an external advisory committee or provide in an action letter, a summary of the reasons why the FDA did not refer the product candidate to an advisory committee. The FDA may also refer other product candidates to an advisory committee if the FDA believes that the advisory committee’s expertise would be beneficial. An advisory committee is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, which review, evaluate, and make 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.
32
Table of Contents
The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product candidate meets the agency’s approval standards and whether the manufacturing methods and controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, potency, and purity. Before approving a marketing application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured, referred to as a Pre-Approval Inspection. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities, including contract manufacturers and subcontractors, are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a marketing application the FDA will inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs.
After evaluating the marketing application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biological product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. Many drug applications receive complete response letters from the FDA during their first cycle of FDA review.
If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product; require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, including boxed warnings; require that post-approval studies, including Phase IV clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a biologic’s efficacy and safety after approval; or require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. The FDA may also not approve label statements that are necessary for successful commercialization and marketing.
In addition to the above conditions of approval, the FDA also may require submission of a REMS to ensure that the benefits of the product candidate outweigh the risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools. An assessment of the REMS must also be conducted at set intervals. Following product approval, a REMS may also be required by the FDA if new safety information is discovered, and the FDA determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the risks. In guidance, FDA stated that during the review of a BLA for a gene therapy, it will assess whether a REMS is necessary. Several gene therapy products that have been approved by FDA have required substantial REMS, which included requirements for dispensing hospital and clinic certification, training, adverse event reporting, documentation, and audits and monitoring conducted by the sponsor, among other conditions. REMS, such as these, can be expensive and burdensome to implement, and burdensome for hospitals, clinics, and health care providers to comply with.
Biosimilars and Exclusivity
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) which amended the PHSA authorized the FDA to approve biosimilars under Section 351(k) of the PHSA. Under the BCPIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is biosimilar to or interchangeable with a previously approved biological product or reference product. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that it is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in safety, purity or potency. A finding of interchangeability requires that a product is determined to be biosimilar to the reference product, and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.
33
Table of Contents
An application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following approval of the reference product, and it may not be approved until 12 years thereafter. These exclusivity provisions only apply to biosimilar companies and not companies that rely on their own data and file a full BLA. Moreover, this exclusivity is not without limitation. Certain changes and supplements to an approved BLA, and subsequent applications filed by the same sponsor, manufacturer, licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity do not qualify for the twelve-year exclusivity period. Further, the twelve-year exclusivity market period in the U.S. for biologics has been controversial and may be shortened in the future.
The PHSA also includes provisions to protect reference products that have patent protection. The biosimilar product sponsor and reference product sponsor may exchange certain patent and product information for the purpose of determining whether there should be a legal patent challenge. Based on the outcome of negotiations surrounding the exchanged information, the reference product sponsor may bring a patent infringement suit and injunction proceedings against the biosimilar product sponsor. The biosimilar applicant may also be able to bring an action for declaratory judgment concerning the patent.
To increase competition in the drug and biologic product marketplace, Congress, the executive branch, and the FDA have taken certain legislative and regulatory steps. By example, in 2020 the FDA finalized a guidance to facilitate biologic product importation. Moreover, the 2020 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act included provisions requiring that sponsors of approved biologic products, including those subject to REMS, provide samples of the approved products to persons developing biosimilar products within specified timeframes, in sufficient quantities, and on commercially reasonable market-based terms. Failure to do so can subject the approved product sponsor to civil actions, penalties, and responsibility for attorney’s fees and costs of the civil action. This same bill also includes provisions with respect to shared and separate REMS programs for reference and generic drug products.
Orphan Drug Exclusivity
Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a biological product as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a biological product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Additionally, sponsors must present a plausible hypothesis for clinical superiority to obtain orphan drug designation if there is a product already approved by the FDA that is considered by the FDA to be the same as the already approved product and is intended for the same indication. This hypothesis must be demonstrated to obtain orphan exclusivity. If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval, it will be granted seven years of marketing exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications for the same product for the same indication for seven years, unless clinical superiority is demonstrated. Competitors may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity and may obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. The FDA has granted orphan drug designation to AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease as well as for etranacogene dezaparvovec; meaning that they would receive orphan drug exclusivity if they are the first products approved for their respective indications. Orphan product sameness decisions are an evolving space when it comes to gene therapies. Specifically, the FDA has issued guidance regarding how it will determine whether a gene therapy product is the same as another product for the purpose of the agency’s orphan drug regulations. Any of the FDA sameness determinations could impact our ability to receive approval for our product candidates and to obtain or retain orphan drug exclusivity.
Pediatric Exclusivity
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, pediatric exclusivity provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity in the US, including orphan exclusivity and exclusivity against biosimilars. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if the FDA issues a written request to the sponsor for the pediatric study, the sponsor submits a final study report after receipt of the written request and meets the terms and timelines in the FDA’s written request.
34
Table of Contents
Regenerative Advanced Therapy Designation
The 21 st Century Cures Act became law in December 2016 and created a new program under Section 3033 in which the FDA has authority to designate a product as a regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”). A drug is eligible for a RMAT designation if: 1) it is a regenerative medicine therapy which is a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, except those products already regulated under Section 361 of the PHSA; 2) the drug is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and 3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. A RMAT must be made with the submission of an IND or as an amendment to an existing IND. FDA will determine if a product is eligible for RMAT designation within 60 days of submission. Advantages of the RMAT designation include all the benefits of the fast track and breakthrough therapy designation programs, including early interactions with the FDA. These early interactions may be used to discuss potential surrogate or intermediate endpoints to support accelerated approval. In 2019 the FDA stated in guidance that human gene therapies, including genetically modified cells, that lead to a sustained effect on cells or tissues, may meet the definition of a regenerative therapy.
FDA Regulation of Companion Diagnostics and Other Combination Products
We may seek to develop companion diagnostics for use in identifying patients that we believe will respond to our gene therapies. Similarly, our product candidates may require delivery devices. A biologic product may be regulated as a combination product if it is intended for use in conjunction with a medical device, such as a drug delivery device or in vitro diagnostic device. For combination products, the biologic and device components must, when used together, be safe and effective and the product labeling must reflect their combined use. In some cases, the medical device component may require a separate premarket submission. Moreover, clinical trial sponsors using investigational devices in their studies must comply with FDA’s investigational device exemption regulations. Once approved or cleared, the device component sponsor (or the combination product sponsor, if both components are covered by one application) must comply with the FDA’s post-market device requirements, including establishment registration, device listing, device labeling, unique device identifier, quality system regulation, medical device reporting, and reporting of corrections and removals requirements.
If the safety or effectiveness of a biologic product is dependent on the results of a diagnostic, the FDA may require that the in vitro companion diagnostic device and biologic product be contemporaneously approved, with labeling that describes the use of the two products together. The type of premarket submission required for a companion diagnostic device will depend on the FDA device classification. A premarket approval (“PMA”), application is required for high risk devices classified as Class III; a 510(k) premarket notification is required for moderate risk devices classified as Class II; and a de novo request may be used for novel devices not previously classified by the FDA that are low or moderate risk. Except in some limited circumstances, the FDA generally will not approve a biologic that is dependent upon the use of a companion diagnostic device if the device is not contemporaneously FDA-approved or -cleared.
Post-approval Requirements
Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to the FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements related to manufacturing, recordkeeping, and reporting, including adverse experience reporting, deviation reporting, shortage reporting, and periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising, marketing, promotion, certain electronic records and signatures, and post-approval obligations imposed as a condition of approval, such as Phase 4 clinical trials, REMS, and surveillance to assess safety and effectiveness after commercialization.
After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing annual program user fee requirements for approved products, excluding orphan products. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals, require label modifications, or request product recalls, among other actions, if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.
35
Table of Contents
Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval or notification before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and specifications and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.
The FDA also strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. A company can make only those claims relating to a product that are approved by the FDA. Physicians, in their independent professional medical judgment, may prescribe legally available products for unapproved indications that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested and approved by the FDA. Biopharmaceutical companies, however, are required to promote their products only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including, but not limited to, criminal and civil penalties under the FDCA and False Claims Act, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, mandatory compliance programs under corporate integrity agreements, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts.
In addition, the distribution of prescription biopharmaceutical samples is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (the “PDMA”), which regulates the distribution of samples at the federal level. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription biopharmaceutical product. Certain reporting related to samples is also required samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Free trial or starter prescriptions provided through pharmacies are also subject to regulations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and potential liability under anti-kickback and false claims laws.
Moreover, the enacted Drug Quality and Security Act (“DQSA”), imposes obligations on sponsors of biopharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Among the requirements of this legislation, sponsors are required to provide certain information regarding the products to individuals and entities to which product ownership is transferred, are required to label products with a product identifier, and are required to keep certain records regarding the product. The transfer of information to subsequent product owners by sponsors is also required to be done electronically. Sponsors must also verify that purchasers of the sponsors’ products are appropriately licensed. Further, under this legislation, manufactures have product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products that would result in serious adverse health consequences of death to humans, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death. Similar requirements additionally are and will be imposed through this legislation on other companies within the biopharmaceutical product supply chain, such as distributors and dispensers, as well as certain sponsor licensees and affiliates.
Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements before or after approval, may result in significant regulatory actions. Such actions may include refusal to approve pending applications, license or approval suspension or revocation, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters, cyber letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, provision of corrective information, imposition of post-market requirements including the need for additional testing, imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, FDA debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, and adverse publicity, among other adverse consequences.
Additional controls for biologics
To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the United States and between states.
36
Table of Contents
After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing the results of all the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer.
In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.
Certain gene therapy studies are also subject to the National Institutes of Health’s Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, (“NIH Guidelines”). The NIH Guidelines include the review of the study by an IBC. The IBC assesses the compliance of the research with the NIH Guidelines, assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. The FDA has also issued guidance with respect to gene therapies, such as guidance concerning preclinical studies, chemistry manufacturing and controls, potency testing, and long-term patient and clinical study subject follow up and regulatory reporting. The FDA further issued a draft guidance specific to the development of gene therapy products for neurodegenerative diseases as such products may face special challenges.
Patent Term Restoration
If approved, biologic products may also be eligible for periods of U.S. patent term restoration. If granted, patent term restoration extends the patent life of a single unexpired patent, that has not previously been extended, for a maximum of five years. The total patent life of the product with the extension also cannot exceed fourteen years from the product’s approval date. Subject to the prior limitations, the period of the extension is calculated by adding half of the time from the effective date of an IND to the initial submission of a marketing application, and all the time between the submission of the marketing application and its approval. This period may also be reduced by any time that the applicant did not act with due diligence.
Anti-Kickback Provisions and other Fraud and Abuse Requirements
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving 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 healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs, in whole or in part. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. The term “remuneration” has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between biopharmaceutical industry members on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. There are certain 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, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all 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 its facts and circumstances.
37
Table of Contents
The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recently promulgated a regulation with respect to the safe harbors that is effective in two phases. First, the regulation excludes from the definition of “remuneration” limited categories of (a) Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) rebates or other reductions in price to a plan sponsor under Medicare Part D or a Medicaid Managed Care Organization plan reflected in point-of sale reductions in price and (b) PBM service fees. Second, as amended, effective January 1, 2023, the regulation expressly provides that rebates to plan sponsors under Medicare Part D either directly to the plan sponsor under Medicare Part D, or indirectly through a pharmacy benefit manager will not be protected under the anti-kickback discount safe harbor. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, including purchases of products paid by federal healthcare programs, the statute has been violated. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, of 2010, as amended, (the “ACA”) modified the intent requirement under the Anti-Kickback Statute 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 to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA also provided that a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is grounds for the government or a whistleblower to assert that a claim for payment of items or services resulting from such violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.
Federal civil false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. The civil False Claims Act has been used to assert liability on the basis of kickbacks and other improper referrals, improperly reported government pricing metrics such as Best Price or Average Manufacturer Price, improper use of Medicare provider or supplier numbers when detailing a provider of services, improper promotion of off-label uses not expressly approved by the FDA in a product’s label, and allegations as to misrepresentations with respect to products, contract requirements, and services rendered. In addition, private payers have been filing follow-on lawsuits alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, although establishing liability and damages in these cases is more difficult than under the FCA. Intent to deceive is not required to establish liability under the civil False Claims Act. Rather, a claim may be false for deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information provided or acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of that information. Civil False Claims Act actions may be brought by the government or may be brought by private individuals on behalf of the government, called “qui tam” actions. If the government decides to intervene in a qui tam action and prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in the proceeds from any fines or settlement funds. If the government declines to intervene, the individual may pursue the case alone. The civil FCA provides for treble damages and a civil penalty for each false claim, such as an invoice or pharmacy claim for reimbursement, which can aggregate into millions of dollars. For these reasons, since 2004, False Claims Act lawsuits against biopharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements, as much as $3.0 billion, regarding certain sales practices and promoting off label uses. Civil False Claims act liability may further be imposed for known Medicare or Medicaid overpayments, for example, overpayments caused by understated rebate amounts, that are not refunded within 60 days of discovering the overpayment, even if the overpayment was not caused by a false or fraudulent act. In addition, conviction, or civil judgment for violating the FCA may result in exclusion from federal health care programs, and suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts. The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer.
The government may further prosecute conduct constituting a false claim under the criminal False Claims Act. The criminal False Claims Act prohibits the making or presenting of a claim to the government knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent and, unlike the civil False Claims Act, requires proof of intent to submit a false claim.
The civil monetary penalties statute is another potential statute under which biopharmaceutical companies may be subject to enforcement. Among other things, the civil monetary penalties statue imposes fines against any person who is determined to have knowingly presented, or caused to be presented, claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows, or should know, is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.
38
Table of Contents
Payment or reimbursement of prescription therapeutics by Medicaid or Medicare requires sponsors to submit certified pricing information to Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”). The Medicaid Drug Rebate statute requires sponsors to calculate and report price points, which are used to determine Medicaid rebate payments shared between the states and the federal government and Medicaid payment rates for certain therapeutics. For therapeutics paid under Medicare Part B, sponsors must also calculate and report their Average Sales Price, which is used to determine the Medicare Part B payment rate. In addition, therapeutics covered by Medicaid are subject to an additional inflation penalty which can substantially increase rebate payments. For products approved under a BLA (including biosimilars), the Veterans Health Care Act, (the “VHCA”), requires sponsors to calculate and report to the Veterans Administration, or VA, a different price called the Non-Federal Average Manufacturing Price, which is used to determine the maximum price that can be charged to certain federal agencies, referred to as the Federal Ceiling Price, (“FCP”). Like the Medicaid rebate amount, the FCP includes an inflation penalty. A Department of Defense regulation requires sponsors to provide this discount on therapeutics dispensed by retail pharmacies when paid by the TRICARE Program. All these price reporting requirements create risk of submitting false information to the government, potential FCA liability and exclusion from certain of these programs.
The VHCA also requires sponsors of covered therapeutics participating in the Medicaid program to enter into Federal Supply Schedule contracts with the VA through which their covered therapeutics must be sold to certain federal agencies at FCP. This necessitates compliance with applicable federal procurement laws and regulations, including submission of commercial sales and pricing information, and subjects companies to contractual remedies as well as administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions. In addition, the VHCA requires sponsors participating in Medicaid to agree to provide different mandatory discounts to certain Public Health Service grantees and other safety net hospitals and clinics under the 340B program based on the sponsor’s reported Medicaid pricing information. The 340B program has its own regulatory authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance and adjudicate overcharge claims against sponsors by the purchasing entities and, impose civil monetary penalties for instances of overcharging.
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, (“HIPAA”), also created federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, 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 of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a healthcare benefit program, regardless of whether the payor is public or private, in connection with the delivery or payment for health care benefits, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a health care benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items, or services relating to healthcare matters. Additionally, the ACA amended the intent requirement of certain of these criminal statutes under HIPAA so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation.
In addition, as part of the ACA, the federal government enacted the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Manufacturers of drugs biologics and devices for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) are required to annually report to CMS payments and transfers of value made to or at the request of covered recipients, such as, but not limited to, physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family. Payments made to physicians and certain research institutions for clinical trials are also included within this law. Reported information is made publicly available by CMS. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties. If not preempted by this federal law, several states currently also require reporting of marketing and promotion expenses, as well as gifts and payments to healthcare professionals. State legislation may also prohibit various other marketing related activities or require the public posting of information. Certain states also require companies to implement compliance programs.
39
Table of Contents
Further, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation 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, (“HITECH Act”), and their respective implementing regulations impose certain requirements on covered entities relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information, known as protected health information. Among other things, the HITECH Act, through its implementing regulations, makes HIPAA’s security standards and certain privacy standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as a person or organization, other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce, that creates, receives, maintains, or transmits protected health information on behalf of a covered entity for a function or activity regulated by HIPAA. The HITECH Act also strengthened the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates, and individuals, 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, other federal and state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, may govern the privacy and security of health and other information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not be preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
Many states have also adopted laws similar to each of the above federal laws, which may be broader in scope and apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers. Certain state laws also regulate sponsors’ use of prescriber-identifiable data. Certain states also require implementation of commercial compliance programs and compliance with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments or the provision of other items of value that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; impose restrictions on marketing practices; or require sponsors to track and report information related to payments, gifts, and other items of value to physicians and other healthcare providers. Recently, states have enacted or are considering legislation intended to make drug prices more transparent and deter significant price increases. These laws may affect our future sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens.
If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws or regulations described above or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties or other enforcement actions, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, corporate integrity agreements, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business.
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, to which we are subject, prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party, or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in an official capacity.
40
Table of Contents
Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement
The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state, and foreign governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Third-party payers and independent non-profit healthcare research organizations such as the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review are also increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and examining the medical necessity, budget-impact, and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. If these third-party payers do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies and/or the standard of care, they may not cover the product after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, measures including prior authorization and step-throughs could be required, manufacturer rebates may be negotiated or required and/or the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit. The U.S. federal and state governments and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid health care costs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. In this regard, for example, on November 27, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing a Most Favored Nation payment model under which reimbursement for certain Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals will be based on a price that reflects the lowest per capital Gross Domestic Product-adjusted (“GDP-adjusted”) price of any non-U.S. member country of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) with a GDP per capita that is at least sixty percent of the U.S. GDP per capita. Adoption of additional healthcare reform controls and measures and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceuticals.
As a result, the marketability of any product which receives regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payers choose to provide low coverage and reimbursement. In addition, an increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and will continue to increase the pressure on drug pricing. Coverage policies, third party reimbursement rates and drug pricing regulation may change at any time. In particular, the ACA contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products, including, for example, increased rebates for drugs sold to Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. Multiple other current and proposed legislative and regulatory efforts require and likely will in the future require payment of increased manufacturer rebates and implement mechanisms to reduce drug prices. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products that receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Regulation in the European Union
Product development, the regulatory approval process and safety monitoring of medicinal products and their manufacturers in the European Union proceed broadly in the same way as they do in the United States. Therefore, many of the issues discussed above apply similarly in the context of the European Union. In addition, drugs are subject to the extensive price and reimbursement regulations of the various EU member states. The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, as amended (“CTD”) (and to be replaced by the Clinical Trial Regulation EU 536/2014) (“CTR”) (it is anticipated by December 2021), provides a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union via (in the case of the CTD) implementation through national legislation of the member states. The CTR is directly applicable in all member states without the need for national implementation. Under this system, approval must be obtained from the competent national authority of an EU member state in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Once the CTR comes into effect however, it will be possible within the EU to make a single harmonized electronic submission and have a single assessment process for clinical trials conducted in multiple member states. Furthermore, a clinical trial may only be started after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion on the clinical trial application (“CTA”), which must be supported by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by the CTD and corresponding national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. In the case of Advanced Therapy Investigational Medical Products (“ATIMPs”) consisting of or containing Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMOs”), as is the case for uniQure’s products, an additional approval for the environmental and biosafety aspects of the use and release of the GMO is required by the GMO competent authorities and GMO directives have been implemented in different ways by Member States; either following the directive for “Contained use” (Directive 2009/41/EC) or “deliberate release” (Directive2001/18/EC). This results in some EU member states, the GMO application must be approved before the Clinical Trial Application (CTA) is submitted, in some after approval of the CTA and in some parallel.
41
Table of Contents
The sponsor of a clinical trial, or its legal representative, must be based in the European Economic Area (“EEA”). European regulators and ethics committees also require the submission of adverse event reports during a study and a copy of the final study report. When the CTR comes into force member states may dispense with the requirement for a legal representative for a non-EU resident sponsor provided there is a contact person based in the EEA.
Marketing approval
Marketing approvals under the European Union regulatory system may be obtained through a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure results in the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all—currently 28—EU member states. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, the centralized procedure is mandatory for drugs developed by means of specified biotechnological processes, and advanced therapy medicinal products as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, as amended. Drugs for human use containing a new active substance for which the therapeutic indication is the treatment of specified diseases, including but not limited to acquired immune deficiency syndrome, neurodegenerative disorders, auto-immune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, as well as drugs designated as orphan drugs pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as amended, also fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Because of our focus on gene therapies, which fall within the category of advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”) and orphan indications, our products and product candidates will need to go through the centralized procedure.
In the marketing authorization application (“MAA”) the applicant must properly and sufficiently demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of the drug. Guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs have been issued and include, among other things, the preclinical studies required to characterize ATMPs; the manufacturing and control information that should be submitted in a MAA; and post-approval measures required to monitor patients and evaluate the long-term efficacy and potential adverse reactions of ATMPs. Although these guidelines are not legally binding, we believe that our compliance will effectively be necessary to gain and maintain approval for any of our product candidates. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the centralized procedure is 210 days after receipt of a valid application subject to clock stops during which the applicant deals with EMA questions.
Market access can be expedited through the grant of conditional authorization for a medicine that may fulfil unmet needs which may be granted provided that the benefit-risk balance of the product is positive. The benefit-risk balance is likely to be positive if the applicant can provide comprehensive data and the benefit to public health of the medicinal product's immediate availability on the market outweighs the risks due to need for further data. Such authorizations are valid for one year and can be renewed annually. The holder will be required to complete specific obligations (ongoing or new studies, and in some cases additional activities) with a view to providing comprehensive data confirming that the benefit-risk balance is positive. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, the marketing authorization may be converted into a standard marketing authorization (not subject to specific obligations). Initially, this is valid for 5 years, but can be renewed for unlimited validity. Applicants for conditional authorizations can benefit from early dialogue with EMA through scientific advice or protocol assistance and discuss their development plan well in advance of the submission of a marketing-authorization application. Other stakeholders (e.g., health technology assessment bodies) can be included.
In addition, the priority medicines (PRIME) scheme for medicines that may offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments, or benefit patients without treatment options based on early clinical data, is intended to support the development of medicines that target an unmet medical need. This voluntary scheme is based on enhanced interaction and early dialogue with developers of promising medicines, to optimize development plans and speed up evaluation so these medicines can reach patients earlier. Early dialogue and scientific advice also ensure that patients only participate in trials designed to provide the data necessary for an application, making the best use of limited resources.
42
Table of Contents
The European Union also provides for a system of regulatory data and market exclusivity. According to Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Article 10 of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical entities approved on the basis of complete independent data package benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application during the eight-year period from when the first placement of the product on the EEA market. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity and the innovator can gain the period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the drug if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical test, preclinical tests, and clinical trials. The EMA has also issued guidelines for a comprehensive comparability exercise for biosimilars, and for specific classes of biological products.
Under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 article 3 as amended (Orphan Drug Regulation, (“ODR”)) a product can benefit from orphan drug status if it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 people in the European Community (EC) when the application is made. The principal benefit of such status is 10 years’ market exclusivity once they are approved preventing the subsequent approval of similar medicines with similar indications although this may be reduced to six years under certain circumstances including if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.
Additional rules apply to medicinal products for pediatric use under Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, as amended. Potential incentives include a six-month extension of any supplementary protection certificate granted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, however not in cases in which the relevant product is designated as an orphan medicinal product pursuant to the ODR. Instead, medicinal products designated as orphan medicinal product may enjoy an extension of the ten-year market exclusivity period granted under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as amended, to twelve years subject to the conditions applicable to orphan drugs.
Manufacturing and promotion
Pursuant to Commission Directive 2003/94/EC as transposed into the national laws of the member states, the manufacturing of investigational medicinal products and approved drugs is subject to a separate manufacturer’s license and must be conducted in strict compliance with cGMP requirements, which mandate the methods, facilities, and controls used in manufacturing, processing, and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. Manufacturers must have at least one qualified person permanently and continuously at their disposal. The qualified person is ultimately responsible for certifying that each batch of finished product released onto the market has been manufactured in accordance with cGMP and the specifications set out in the marketing authorization or investigational medicinal product dossier. cGMP requirements are enforced through mandatory registration of facilities and inspections of those facilities. Failure to comply with these requirements could interrupt supply and result in delays, unanticipated costs, and lost revenues, and subject the applicant to potential legal or regulatory action, including but not limited to warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action, or possible civil and criminal penalties.
Advertising
In the European Union, the promotion of prescription medicines is subject to intense regulation and control, including a prohibition on direct-to-consumer advertising. All medicines advertising must be consistent with the product’s approved summary of products characteristics, factual, accurate, balanced and not misleading. Advertising of medicines pre-approval or off-label is prohibited. Some jurisdictions require that all promotional materials for prescription medicines be subjected to either prior internal or regulatory review & approval.
43
Table of Contents
Other Regulatory Requirements
A holder of a marketing authorization for a medicinal product is legally obliged to fulfill several obligations by virtue of its status as a marketing authorization holder (“MAH”). The MAH can delegate the performance of related tasks to third parties, such as distributors or marketing collaborators, provided that this delegation is appropriately documented and the MAH maintains legal responsibility and liability.
The obligations of an MAH include:
● Manufacturing and Batch Release. MAHs should guarantee that all manufacturing operations comply with relevant laws and regulations, applicable good manufacturing practices, with the product specifications and manufacturing conditions set out in the marketing authorization and that each batch of product is subject to appropriate release formalities.
● Pharmacovigilance. MAHs are obliged to establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system, including a qualified person responsible for oversight, to submit safety reports to the regulators and comply with the good pharmacovigilance practice guidelines adopted by the EMA.
● Advertising and Promotion. MAHs remain responsible for all advertising and promotion of their products, including promotional activities by other companies or individuals on their behalf and in some cases, must conduct internal or regulatory pre-approval of promotional materials.
● Medical Affairs/Scientific Service. MAHs are required to disseminate scientific and medical information on their medicinal products to healthcare professionals, regulators, and patients.
● Legal Representation and Distributor Issues. MAHs are responsible for regulatory actions or inactions of their distributors and agents.
● Preparation, Filing and Maintenance of the Application and Subsequent Marketing Authorization. MAHs must maintain appropriate records, comply with the marketing authorization’s terms and conditions, fulfill reporting obligations to regulators, submit renewal applications and pay all appropriate fees to the authorities.
We may hold any future marketing authorizations granted for our product candidates in our own name or appoint an affiliate or a collaborator to hold marketing authorizations on our behalf. Any failure by an MAH to comply with these obligations may result in regulatory action against an MAH and ultimately threaten our ability to commercialize our products.
Reimbursement
In the European Union, the pricing and reimbursement mechanisms by private and public health insurers vary largely by country and even within countries. In respect of the public systems, reimbursement for standard drugs is determined by guidelines established by the legislature or responsible national authority. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. Other member states allow companies to determine the prices for their medicines but monitor and control company profits and may limit or restrict reimbursement and can include retrospective rebates to the Government. The downward pressure on healthcare 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 and some of EU countries require the completion of studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Special pricing and reimbursement rules may apply to orphan drugs.
Inclusion of orphan drugs in reimbursement systems tend to focus on the medical usefulness, need, quality and economic benefits to patients and the healthcare system as for any drug. Acceptance of any medicinal product for reimbursement may come with cost, use and often volume restrictions, which again can vary by country. In addition, results-based rules or agreements on reimbursement may apply. Recently, a process has been formalized that allows sponsors to receive parallel advice from EMA and relevant national health technology assessment (“HTA”) bodies for pivotal clinical studies designed to support marketing approval. This process was followed for etranacogene dezaparvovec.
44
Table of Contents
Orphan Drug Regulation
We have been granted orphan drug exclusivity for etranacogene dezaparvovec for the treatment of hemophilia B as well as for AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease subject to the conditions applicable to orphan drug exclusivity in the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as amended, states that a drug will be designated as an orphan drug if its sponsor can establish:
● that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the Community when the application is made, or that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment; and
● that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, that the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.
Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 sets out further provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a drug as an orphan drug. An application for the designation of a drug as an orphan drug must be submitted at any stage of development of the drug before filing of a marketing authorization application.
If an EU-wide community marketing authorization in respect of an orphan drug is granted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, the European Union and the member states will not, for a period of 10 years, accept another application for a marketing authorization, or grant a marketing authorization or accept an application to extend an existing marketing authorization, for the same therapeutic indication, in respect of a similar drug.
This period may however be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established, in respect of the drug concerned, that the criteria for orphan drug designation are no longer met, in other words, when it is shown on the basis of available evidence that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a marketing authorization may be granted, for the same therapeutic indication, to a similar drug if:
● the holder of the marketing authorization for the original orphan drug has given its consent to the second applicant;
● the holder of the marketing authorization for the original orphan drug is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the drug; or
● the second applicant can establish in the application that the second drug, although similar to the orphan drug already authorized, is safer, more effective, or otherwise clinically superior.
Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 lays down definitions of the concepts similar drug and clinical superiority, which concepts have been expanded upon in subsequent Commission guidance. Other incentives available to orphan drugs in the European Union include financial incentives such as a reduction of fees or fee waivers and protocol assistance. Orphan drug designation does not shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
45
Table of Contents
Human Capital Resources
As of December 31, 2020, we had a total of 332 employees, 162 of whom are based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and 170 in Lexington, Massachusetts, United States of America. As of December 31, 2020, 62 of our employees had an M.D. or Ph.D. degree, or the foreign equivalent. During 2017, we established a works council in the Netherlands. None of our employees are subject to collective bargaining or other labor organizations. We believe that we have good relations with all our employees and with the works council in the Netherlands.
Our values are to:
● Be passionate about the patient;
● Act with integrity and respect;
● Take ownership and act with urgency;
● Collaborate for success;
● Innovate every day; and
● Focus relentlessly on quality.
Development of our culture is reflected as part of our annual corporate goals. We invest in numerous learning opportunities focused on individual, management and team development and other initiatives to support our employees and build our culture.
Corporate Information
uniQure B.V. (the “Company”) was incorporated on January 9, 2012 as a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) under the laws of the Netherlands. We are a leader in the field of gene therapy and seek to deliver to patients suffering from rare and other devastating diseases single treatments with potentially curative results. Our business was founded in 1998 and was initially operated through our predecessor company, Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics Holding N.V (“AMT”). In 2012, AMT undertook a corporate reorganization, pursuant to which uniQure B.V. acquired the entire business and assets of AMT and completed a share-for-share exchange with the shareholders of AMT. Effective February 10, 2014, in connection with the initial public offering, we converted into a public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap) and changed its legal name from uniQure B.V. to uniQure N.V.
We are registered in the trade register of the Dutch Chamber of Commerce (Kamer van Koophandel) under number 54385229. Our headquarters are in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and its registered office is located at Paasheuvelweg 25a, Amsterdam 1105 BP, the Netherlands and its telephone number is +31 20 240 6000.
From our initial public offering until December 31, 2018, we were an emerging growth company, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. On the last business day of our second quarter in fiscal year 2018 the aggregate worldwide market value of ordinary shares held by our non-affiliate shareholders exceeded $700.0 million. As a result, as of December 31, 2018, we were considered a large accelerated filer and as a consequence lost our status as an emerging growth company.
Our website address is www.uniqure.com. We make available free of charge through our Internet website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the SEC. Also available through our website’s “Investors & Newsroom: Corporate Governance” page are charters for the Audit, Compensation and Nominations and Corporate Governance committees of our board of directors and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. We are not including the information on our website as a part of, nor incorporating it by reference into, this report.
46
Table of Contents