Tectonic Therapeutic, Inc. 10-K

Item 1. Business. Overview We are a leading clinical-stage gene therapy company with a mission to free people from a lifetime of genetic disease. Our company is focused on developing potentially curative ex vivo lentiviral-based gene therapies to treat patients with rare diseases following a single dose treatment regimen. Our gene therapies employ hematopoietic stem cells that are harvested from the patient and then modified with a lentiviral vector to insert the equivalent of a functional copy of the gene that is mutated in the target disease. We believe that our approach, which is designed to transform stem cells from patients into therapeutic products, has the potential to provide curative benefit for a range of diseases. Our initial focus is on a group of rare genetic diseases referred to as lysosomal disorders, some of which today are primarily managed with enzyme replacement therapies, or ERTs. These lysosomal disorders have well-understood biologies, identified patient populations, established standards of care yet with significant unmet needs, and represent large market opportunities with approximately $3.4 billion in worldwide net sales in 2021. Our pipeline is currently comprised of five lentiviral-based gene therapy programs: AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis; AVR-RD-02 for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 1; AVR-RD-05 for the treatment of Hunter syndrome; AVR-RD-06 for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 3; and AVR-RD-03 for the treatment of Pompe disease. AVR-RD-04 is currently being studied for the treatment of cystinosis by our collaborators at the University of California, San Diego, or UCSD, in a Phase 1/2 collaborator-sponsored clinical trial, and as of March 1, 2022 four patients have been dosed. In December 2021 we received feedback from the FDA following a Type C meeting. Pending the outcome of further planned FDA interactions this year, we expect to initiate a Company-sponsored trial in 2023 with initial sites in the United States, followed by sites in Europe and the United Kingdom. Our current plan involves a two-part strategy, beginning in a pre-renal transplant population followed by a post-renal transplant population. Three patients have been dosed as of March 1, 2022 in our Company-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 1, which we refer to as the Guard1 clinical trial, and we are actively recruiting additional potential patients for our currently active sites. We currently plan to provide updated interim clinical trial data in 2022. AVR-RD-05 is being studied for the treatment of Hunter syndrome by our collaborators at The University of Manchester, and a Phase 1/2 investigator-sponsored clinical trial is expected to be initiated in 2023. In October 2021, the FDA granted rare pediatric disease designation for AVR-RD-05 for the treatment of Hunter syndrome. Under this program, if AVR-RD-05 is approved by the FDA then the Company may qualify for a voucher that can be redeemed to receive a priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product candidate. AVR-RD-06 is our preclinical program for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 3, and we expect to engage with regulatory authorities this year to discuss a path to the clinic, including a potential Phase 2/3 clinical trial. Our AVR-RD-03 program for Pompe disease has completed planned preclinical development, and we are planning to engage with regulatory authorities this year to discuss a potential path to the clinic with the goal of initiating a clinical trial in 2023. In January 2022 we announced the deprioritization of AVR-RD-01, our investigational gene therapy program for Fabry disease. This decision was made due to several factors, including new clinical data showing variable engraftment patterns from the five most recently dosed patients in the Company’s Phase 2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-01 for the treatment of Fabry disease, which we refer to as the FAB-GT clinical trial. The emergence of such new data would have significantly extended the program’s development timeline. That development, coupled with an increasingly challenging market and regulatory environment for Fabry disease, were among the primary factors leading to the Company’s deprioritization of its Fabry program. As a result of the deprioritization, the Company has stopped enrollment of its Phase 2 FAB-GT clinical trial and will focus on its other pipeline programs. 1 Since its first clinical use in 2003, lentiviral-based gene therapy has been studied in several third parties’ clinical trials for rare diseases such as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, or CALD, metachromatic leukodystrophy, or MLD, and adenosine deaminase severe combined immunodeficiency, or ADA-SCID. Initially, the use of ex vivo lentiviral-based gene therapies was restricted primarily to the most severe diseases where the risks of the typical requirement for ablating the patients’ bone marrow had a clinically justifiable risk/benefit profile. To date, hundreds of patients have been treated with lentiviral-based gene therapies in third parties’ and our rare disease clinical trials, and we believe the technology can be developed for other serious conditions based on a rigorous risk/benefit assessment. The ablation procedure, also known as the conditioning regimen, is typically an essential step in the ex vivo gene therapy treatment procedure and is administered prior to the gene therapy. We have worked to optimize the conditioning regimen through utilization o f a precision busulfan dosing program, which we refer to as Target Concentration Intervention , or TCI. TCI is designed to enable careful titrating of exposure to the conditioning drug to a specific area under the curve, or AuC. The conditioning regimen utilized as part of our plato platform includes TCI to assess how rapidly the individual patient metabolizes the conditioning agent so physicians can adjust the dose as needed, with a goal of minimizing side effects from conditioning while maximizing the potential of durable engraftment. In addition, we are evaluating the potential future use of alternative conditioning agents in lieu of the current busulfan TCI conditioning regimen. For example, we have entered into collaboration agreements with Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. and Magenta Therapeutics, Inc. and are currently evaluating the potential use of their respective monoclonal antibody conditioning agents. We are also evaluating the potential use of additional agents to tailor the conditioning regimen for certain disease indications. We believe our approach to conditioning has the potential to extend the reach of our gene therapies to a broad range of diseases as first-line therapies. Plato is our gene therapy platform designed to provide the foundation for the potential worldwide commercialization of our gene therapies, if approved. It is an ex vivo gene therapy platform incorporating multiple upgrades including a four-plasmid lentiviral vector designed to optimize vector copy number, transduction efficiency and resulting enzyme activity; a closed, automated manufacturing system designed to improve consistency and predictability of the drug product; and a personalized approach to conditioning. Six patients in our FAB-GT clinical trial of AVR-RD-01, for which enrollment has been halted, and three patients in our Guard1 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02, have been dosed with drug product manufactured utilizing the plato platform, and we intend to utilize the plato platform with these process changes for all future patients enrolling in our Company-sponsored clinical trials. We believe our innovations in viral vector design, cellular manufacturing, cryopreservation, conditioning and other related processes are important steps towards advancing the field of lentiviral-based gene therapy and realizing its full potential to treat a number of diseases. We plan to continue leveraging advancements in stem cell transplantation with the goal of improving patient tolerability of our lentiviral-based gene therapies. We are initially targeting rare lysosomal disorders in which the current standard of care provides the mechanistic proof that the enzymes or proteins produced endogenously following treatment with our gene therapies can offer benefit to patients. Typically, in lysosomal disorders, a gene mutation results in the deficiency or malfunctioning of an enzyme or other protein. This results in the inability of lysosomes to properly process cellular materials such as damaged organelles. As a result, substrates and their metabolites accumulate to toxic levels in the body’s cells and, in turn, disrupt the function of multiple tissues and organs. Gaucher disease (types 1 and 3), Hunter syndrome and Pompe disease are currently primarily managed by bi-weekly (or weekly in the case of Hunter syndrome), multi-hour infusions with ERTs that seek to exogenously replace the missing functional enzyme. However, given their pharmacokinetics, most ERTs typically remain in the plasma only for a short period of time and thus are not ideal because they are only dosed weekly or every two weeks. Cystinosis is currently treated with two oral formulations of cysteamine that must be taken orally every 12 or six hours, leading to significant pill burden and compliance challenges. Further, oral cysteamine treatment has no effect on ocular cystine crystals deposits, thus requiring patients to be treated with topical cysteamine eye drops which must be applied each hour the patient is awake. These existing therapies manage, rather than cure, the underlying diseases and, as a result, patients continue to have disease progression. Further, the frequent, periodic and life-long dosing schedule required for ERTs and cysteamine results in significant costs for the healthcare system and is burdensome for the patient. We believe our gene therapies leverage the well-understood mechanism of ERTs by transforming a patient’s own cells into a drug product that enables the patient to express functional enzyme or other protein and mirror the biology seen in an otherwise healthy individual. We believe that a single dose of our gene therapies may provide meaningful life-long benefit to these patients and potentially halt the progression of these diseases while also potentially providing significant health economic advantages. 2 Our programs leverage years of extensive preclinical and early clinical research by leading researchers, as well as our internal research and ongoing clinical efforts. The status of our initial lentiviral-based gene therapy programs is reflected below. We continue to seek opportunities to expand our approach to other rare and non-rare diseases. We plan to identify and develop future product candidates through our own internal research efforts as well as through collaborations with leading researchers worldwide. Our Expertise We are led by biopharmaceutical experts with extensive experience in gene and cellular therapy, and rare diseases. Our team has broad expertise in the clinical, regulatory and commercialization aspects of rare diseases as well as process development and manufacturing for cellular therapies. Members of our management team have held senior positions at Axovant Sciences (now Sio Gene Therapies), Biogen, bluebird bio, Freeline Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Lonza, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Shire, Spark Therapeutics, and other companies pursuing development, manufacturing and commercialization of gene, cellular and other therapies to treat rare diseases. Our Strategy Our goal is to develop and commercialize lentiviral-based gene therapies that free patients from a lifetime of genetic disease. Key elements of our strategy include: • Rapidly advance our pipeline targeting lysosomal disorders. We are initially targeting lysosomal disorders and are developing a pipeline of five gene therapies to treat cystinosis, Gaucher disease type 1, Hunter syndrome, Gaucher disease type 3 and Pompe disease. We intend to continue rapidly advancing these programs in parallel and to obtain clinical data that could potentially support regulatory filings around the world. • Continue implementing and enhancing our industry-leading plato platform with its personalized approach to conditioning, enhanced vector technology and automated, closed manufacturing processes. Our end-to-end plato platform is designed to provide the foundation for worldwide commercialization of our gene therapies, if approved. We believe our innovations in viral vector design, cellular manufacturing, cryopreservation, and other related processes are important steps towards advancing the field of lentiviral-based gene therapy and realizing its full potential to treat a number of diseases. Plato incorporates a four-plasmid lentiviral vector designed to optimize vector copy number, transduction efficiency and resulting enzyme activity. In combination with this vector, in some indications we use a number of proprietary peptide tag technologies to enhance uptake of therapeutic protein in key tissues. We have also developed a manufacturing process that we believe is both reproducible and scalable, and we believe this technology could enable us to deliver our gene therapies to patients, if approved, in quantities sufficient for global commercial supply. In addition, we believe our personalized approach to conditioning using busulfan with a precision dosing program called Target Concentration Intervention could enable us to deliver durable, ‘head-to-toe’ treatment of symptoms and early intervention in the treatment of lysosomal disorders. We 3 intend to continue to leverage advancements in stem cell transplantation , including e valuating the potential use of monoclonal antibody conditioning . • Leverage our approach beyond our initial indications. We are initially developing gene therapies for the treatment of five different lysosomal disorders and believe that we will gain significant learnings and technical insights from these programs. We intend to leverage our technology and insights to treat a number of rare and non-rare diseases where we believe our lentiviral approach has transformative potential. Our Approach We develop gene therapies utilizing our ex vivo lentiviral-based approach to transform a patient’s own stem cells into a drug product. Our investigational gene therapies employ lentiviral vectors that are designed to result in stable integration of the desired genes in the chromosomes of stem cells such that they are permanently maintained in the cell and can be reproduced as the cell divides. We focus on delivering our lentiviral-based gene therapies to patient-derived hematopoietic stem cells, which are primitive stem cells that develop into all types of blood cells, including white blood cells, red blood cells and platelets. To accomplish this, we harvest a patient’s hematopoietic stem cells and modify them ex vivo to add the equivalent of a functional copy of the gene that is mutated in the target disease. We then infuse the genetically modified cells back into the patient. Our gene therapies are designed to be administered to the patient as a one-time therapy following a conditioning regimen. We are focused on employing our approach to treat and potentially cure lysosomal disorders. These disorders have well-understood biologies, identified patient populations, established standards of care that leave many patients with significant unmet medical needs, and represent large markets with approximately $3.4 billion in worldwide net sales in 2021. We believe our ex vivo lentiviral-based gene therapy approach can be industrialized into a robust, scalable and, if approved, commercially viable process that will allow us to deliver our potentially curative therapies to patients across the world. Potential Advantages of Ex-Vivo Lentiviral-Based Gene Therapy Approach We believe ex-vivo lentiviral-based gene therapy has the potential to provide numerous advantages, including: • Durable benefit. We believe lentiviral vectors have the potential to provide life-long benefits with a single dose. Lentiviral vectors can integrate stably into the genome of hematopoietic stem cells and, when these cells replicate, they pass the integrated genes on to their progeny cells. Across the industry, efficacy in patients treated with lentiviral gene therapies has been demonstrated for longer than 13 years. • Systemic therapeutic effect. Progeny cells circulate systemically and may migrate into tissues and therefore have the ability to provide therapeutic benefit to affected tissues and organs throughout the body. In addition, we believe that our personalized busulfan conditioning regimen has the potential to allow the therapeutic benefits of our gene therapies to cross the blood-brain barrier and treat symptoms arising in the central nervous system. These often severe symptoms are typically unaddressed by the current standards-of-care for lysosomal disorders. • Broad patient applicability. Lentiviral-based gene therapies have been used to deliver treatments to patients of all ages, including children, and to patients who may be ineligible for other types of gene therapy due to the presence of preexisting antibodies that detect viral vectors and trigger the immune system to destroy the vector and cells infected by the vector. • Restoration of protein function. By contrast to the standard-of-care enzyme replacement therapy, which seeks to clear toxic substrate as a key symptom of a non-functioning gene, restoration of gene function may deliver a wide array of additional biochemical benefits throughout the body. • Tolerability in clinical trials. To date, we have not seen any unexpected safety events in 21 patients across four clinical trials, with the longest follow-up more than 4.5 years to date. • Larger and varied payloads. In contrast to other viral vectors, lentiviral vectors have the capacity to carry larger gene sequences, which allow them to potentially address a large variety of indications. 4 Strategic Selection of Our Initial Indications There are approximately 70 identified lysosomal disorders, which are characterized by an abnormal toxic build-up of substrates and their metabolites in the body’s cells. We are currently targeting cystinosis, Gaucher disease type 1, Hunter syndrome, Gaucher disease type 3 and Pompe disease. Each of these disorders affects a meaningful number of patients, has a suboptimal standard of care with unmet medical need and, we believe, is appropriate for lentiviral-based gene therapy. We believe our approach has the potential to address the shortcomings of existing therapies that, despite chronic dosing, cannot halt or reverse disease progression, restore normal lifespan or adequately address symptoms arising in both the peripheral tissues and the central nervous system. Expanding the Utility of Lentiviral-Based Gene Therapy with Optimized Conditioning Regimens A core part of our approach is to expand the use of lentiviral-based gene therapy to treat numerous lysosomal disorders. We believe conditioning is an essential step to optimize these treatments as it is designed to clear space in the patient’s bone marrow and central nervous system for cells carrying the therapeutic gene. This maximizes the potential for their long-term engraftment which may enhance durability of therapeutic effect. We believe enabling patient and physician choice of conditioning agents has the potential to be a substantial advance in the gene therapy field, and are evaluating the implementation of a tailored conditioning approach for certain disease indications. We plan to continue using busulfan conditioning and intend to strive to optimize its tolerability profile. We have pioneered precision dosing of busulfan in gene therapy in a single treatment cycle, with the goal of enhancing the patient experience. A body of research has identified an optimal exposure range for busulfan (Bu-90). Our approach is to personalize conditioning to each patient using TCI, a precision dosing program. TCI is designed to allow for continually controlled exposure by assessing via simple blood draws how rapidly the individual patient metabolizes busulfan, to inform further administration. Use of busulfan in a conditioning regimen causes side effects and can transiently compromise the patient’s immune system, known as neutropenia, and reduce blood clotting, known as thrombocytopenia. The higher the level of conditioning, the greater the potential risk of more serious complications, such as veno-occlusive disease. However, we believe our approach to conditioning has the potential for reduced, predictable and manageable short- and long-term toxicities and maximized long-term engraftment. In addition to our utilization of busulfan, we are committed to staying on the forefront of new conditioning approaches. For example, we are exploring the implementation of monoclonal antibody conditioning for certain indications and have entered into collaboration agreements with Magenta Therapeutics and Jasper Therapeutics. We believe our approach to conditioning has the potential to extend the reach of our gene therapies to a broad range of lysosomal disorders as first-line therapies. plato: Our Commercial-Scale Platform In addition to developing first-line gene therapies, an important key to our strategy is to continuously improve our technology and production processes and to leverage these improvements across our gene therapies, if approved. Plato is designed to provide the foundation for the potential worldwide commercialization of our gene therapies. It is an ex vivo gene therapy platform incorporating multiple upgrades including a four-plasmid lentiviral vector designed to optimize vector copy number, transduction efficiency and resulting enzyme activity; a closed, automated manufacturing system designed to improve consistency and predictability of the drug product; and a personalized approach to conditioning. Plato has been used to dose a total of nine patients in our clinical trials, which includes six patients from our FAB-GT trial for which enrollment has been halted, and we intend to utilize the plato platform for all future patients enrolling in our Company-sponsored clinical trials. We believe our plato platform may lead to better patient outcomes and will represent a significant advance in our industry towards achieving the quality and scale required for global commercialization of gene therapies. Our plato platform is designed to feature: • Large scale vector production: We currently have manufacturing capabilities, through contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, at 200-liter bioreactor scale, with vector production capable of treating a substantial number of patients per year. • Global reach : Our automated, closed system for manufacturing is designed to allow for the flexible production of our gene therapies. The automated, closed manufacturing system is portable with proprietary AVROBIO algorithms which allow for efficient establishment of manufacturing capabilities in multiple geographies that can be expanded or adjusted as our global supply requirements evolve. We believe this approach will facilitate global 5 manufacturing and shipping of our gene therapies, and will promote access to our products by patients and caregivers. • Quality of manufacturing : Our platform is designed to utilize current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, and we believe our automated, closed manufacturing system may result in less production variability and reduce the risk of operator error, while enhancing the potency of the drug product. We believe these features will improve the quality of our gene therapies that are produced. • Patient convenience : Our gene therapies are cryopreserved, which is a feature designed to promote a longer shelf-life. We believe that a longer shelf-life will allow patients and clinics to schedule treatment sessions with greater convenience. • Cost containment : Our platform is designed to control fixed and variable expenses associated with manufacturing our gene therapies. We believe the plato platform will form the backbone of our future commercialization efforts and our goal to take gene therapy mainstream. Next Generation Vector Technology We have utilized our core expertise in the development and optimization of lentiviral vectors to improve the vectors used in our gene therapies. We have made and expect to continue to make enhancements to our lentiviral vectors to improve safety, efficacy and efficiency. For example, clinical trials of AVR-RD-01 first utilized our original academic three-plasmid-produced lentiviral vector, which we refer to as LV1. However, we dosed six patients in our now halted FAB-GT clinical trial of AVR-RD-01 and the first three patients in our ongoing Guard1 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 using our proprietary four-plasmid lentiviral vector, which we refer to as LV2, and expect to dose all future patients in our Company-sponsored trials with LV2. Our goal is to employ vectors that are state-of-the-art and that can be produced in a cost-effective and scalable manner. Automated, Closed Manufacturing System Our team has significant experience in cell processing and commercial-scale cellular therapy manufacturing. We have developed and are implementing a detailed plan for more cost efficient and scalable manufacturing of our gene therapies. In contrast to a number of other gene therapy companies that have not developed their commercial scale plans from the outset, we have executed on our plans to move to a closed suspension bioreactor system for vector production, as well as a closed, automated system for manufacturing our gene therapy product. Our move to a closed, automated manufacturing system was completed in 2019 as part of implementing upgrades from our plato platform, and six patients in our now halted FAB-GT clinical trial of AVR-RD-01 and the first three patients in our ongoing Guard1 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 were each dosed using this system. Our manufacturing approach is intended to allow for the production of drug product using relatively small, self-contained devices, which may reduce our reliance on large traditional clean rooms that are expensive to establish and maintain. We believe our manufacturing approach may result in greater flexibility in the location of manufacture and help to control costs associated with traditional manufacturing. In addition, we believe our automated manufacturing process may reduce operator error and yield greater consistency and less variability in the manufactured drug product. We currently plan to rely on one CMO site, located in the United States, as a sole source provider of drug product for our Company-sponsored clinical trials worldwide. 6 Optimization of Conditioning Regimen The conditioning regimen that we first employed utilized melphalan, a common chemotherapy drug, to ablate the patient’s bone marrow. As part of the upgrades to our plato platform, we transitioned to utilizing busulfan, another chemotherapy drug, that has been in use since the 1950’s. Busulfan is indicated for use in combination with cyclophosphamide as a conditioning regimen prior to allogeneic stem cell transplantation for chronic myeloid leukemia. Busulfan is routinely used in conditioning regimens before allogeneic stem cell transplantations for both malignant and non-malignant conditions. It has also been used as a single-agent, or in combination with an immunosuppressive agent, such as cyclophosphamide, in conditioning regimens prior to ex vivo gene therapy transplants. Busulfan permits utilization of TCI in our conditioning regimen, thereby enabling physicians to personalize the dosing to each patient by titrating over four days to potentially enhance patient tolerability to the conditioning procedure and promote cell engraftment. By contrast, melphalan is administered once with no TCI, and may cause concern of conditioning-related toxicity across patients due to individual differences in metabolism of the drug. In addition, we believe that the utilization of busulfan in our conditioning regimen has the potential to allow our gene therapies to cross the blood-brain barrier, a feature which may yield therapeutic benefit in diseases that have a central nervous system component, such as Gaucher disease type 3, Hunter syndrome, Pompe disease and other rare and non-rare diseases. Finally, our busulfan conditioning regimen is designed to create more space in the ablated bone marrow compared to melphalan and may increase the average VCN of the patient bone marrow following treatment with the drug product, which are features that we believe will promote better cell engraftment and durability of the gene therapy. Advantages of Our Approach over Existing Therapies We believe our gene therapy solutions offer several potential advantages over existing therapies for lysosomal disorders, including: • Curative impact that has the potential to halt or reverse disease progression. Existing ERTs for Gaucher, Hunter and Pompe, and oral therapies for cystinosis, provide some therapeutic benefit to patients. However, because of their suboptimal pharmacokinetics, these ERTs only transiently increase plasma enzyme levels and the therapies for cystinosis require multiple doses throughout the day. In contrast, our lentiviral-based gene therapies are designed to enable the body to constantly produce the functional enzyme or other protein. This can potentially halt pathological damage and, depending on the targeted indication and organ system, may even reverse disease progression. Our lentiviral-based gene therapies may provide potentially curative treatment to patients. This concept is illustrated in the graphs below. 7 • Durable, single-dose treatment. Our gene therapies offer the potential for a single dose to replace life-long, bi-weekly infusions or daily oral therapies that are often accompanied by numerous side effects and impact patients’ quality of life. Our gene therapies are designed to transform the patient’s own cells into a drug product that enables the continuous delivery of functional enzyme or other protein throughout the body after a single dose. • Reduced treatment cost over a patient’s lifetime. Existing ERTs and oral therapies can cost millions of dollars over a patient’s lifetime because these therapies require frequent doses of expensive treatments to manage symptoms. Our single-dose gene therapies are designed to replace the costly chronic intravenous and oral therapies that are the current standard of care for patients with lysosomal disorders. AVR-RD-04, Our Gene Therapy for Cystinosis Together with UCSD, we are developing CTNS-RD-04, which we refer to as AVR-RD-04, for the treatment of patients with cystinosis. AVR-RD-04 is manufactured from hematopoietic stem cells that are first harvested from the patient, modified to add the gene that encodes for cystinosin, and then infused into the patient. AVR-RD-04 is currently being studied by our collaborators at UCSD in a Phase 1/2 collaborator-sponsored clinical trial. As of March 1, 2022 four patients have been dosed with AVR-RD-04. In March 2021, we announced that the European Commission granted orphan drug designation for AVR-RD-04. In July 2021, we received clearance from the FDA for an IND application for AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis. This IND clearance allows the Company to initiate a Company-sponsored long-term follow-up study for patients enrolled in the Phase 1/2 collaborator-sponsored clinical trial, as well as potentially initiate a new Company-sponsored clinical trial, subject to regulatory clearance. Also in July 2021, the FDA granted Fast Track Designation for AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis to improve renal function. Disease Overview Cystinosis is a rare, genetic, autosomal recessive, lysosomal disorder caused by the accumulation of cystine, the oxidized dimer of the amino acid cysteine. Cystine is normally transported through the lysosomal membrane to the cytosol where it is reutilized after its transformation to cysteine. In cystinosis, cystine accumulates inside the lysosomes because of a defect in the gene that encodes cystinosin, the protein that transports cystine across the lysosomal membrane. Cystine is poorly soluble and forms crystals as its concentration increases. These crystals build up and cause complications in many organs and tissues. The kidneys and eyes are especially vulnerable to damage, and the muscles, thyroid, pancreas and testes may also be affected. The most severe form of cystinosis begins in infancy, causing poor growth and a particular type of kidney damage in which certain molecules, such as glucose, amino acids, phosphate, and bicarbonate, that should be reabsorbed into the bloodstream are instead eliminated in the urine. These renal problems ultimately lead to impaired growth and may result in soft, bowed bones, especially in the legs. By the time the patient is approximately two years old, cystine crystals may be present in the cornea, and the buildup of these crystals in the eye causes pain and an increased sensitivity to light. Untreated children with cystinosis may experience complete kidney failure by the age of ten. Other signs and symptoms that may occur in untreated patients, especially after adolescence, include muscle deterioration, blindness, inability to swallow, type 1 diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, and central nervous system problems. More than 90% of untreated patients require a kidney transplant before the age of 20. It is estimated that cystinosis disease is diagnosed in approximately one in 170,000 people. Limitations of Current Therapies Cystinosis is currently treated with oral formulations of cysteamine that enter the lysosome and stimulate the breakdown of cystine into products that do not require the cystinosin protein to be transported. Oral treatment can delay the development of kidney failure by six to ten years if it is started at a very early age, however it cannot prevent kidney failure or the development of other complications, such as the formation of cystine crystals in the cornea. The most commonly prescribed oral therapies for cystinosis are Procysbi (delayed release cysteamine bitartrate), marketed by Horizon Orphan, and Cystagon (cysteamine bitartrate), marketed by Mylan and Recordati S.p.A. In 2021, Procysbi generated worldwide net sales of approximately $190 million. We estimate that the average five-year cost to the healthcare system per cystinosis patient prescribed standard of care treatment in the United States is approximately $4.3 million. 8 Procysbi and Cystagon must be taken orally every 12 or six hours, respectively, leading to significant pill burden and compliance challenges. Because cysteamine works by directly binding to cystine, rather than through a typical small molecule that inhibits an enzyme or receptor, a substantial quantity is required. For adults, this can mean taking at least 12 capsules twice a day, every day. Oral therapy with cysteamine is associated with a high degree of noncompliance due to the frequency with which it must be dosed and the accompanying nausea, as well as the acrid sulfur smell that it produces in the breath and body. It has been estimated that only one third of patients are able to adhere to the strict dosing schedule. Studies have shown that adherence diminishes over time in adolescents and adults despite disease impact. Further, oral cysteamine treatment has no effect on ocular cystine crystals deposits, thus requiring patients to be treated with topical cysteamine eye drops which must be applied each hour the patient is awake. Our Solution We are developing AVR-RD-04 to potentially provide a functional cure to patients with cystinosis with a single dose of the patient’s own hematopoietic stem cells modified in an ex vivo procedure. AVR-RD-04 is a lentiviral-based gene therapy containing a human gene for cystinosin designed to maximize the likelihood of sustained cystinosin production in hematopoietic stem cells and their progeny. Ongoing Phase 1/2 Collaborator-Sponsored Clinical Trial In the ongoing collaborator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-04, up to six patients with cystinosis who are currently being treated with cysteamine will be enrolled. This clinical trial is being conducted by UCSD and has been funded in part by grants to UCSD from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cystinosis Research Foundation and National Institutes of Health. The clinical trial’s primary endpoints are safety and tolerability, assessed for up to two years after treatment. Secondary endpoints to assess preliminary efficacy include change from baseline in cystine levels in rectal mucosa and granulocytes, as well as cystine crystal counts in the cornea and skin. These secondary efficacy endpoints will also be evaluated through clinical tests of kidney function, ophthalmologic measures, muscle strength, pulmonary function and neurological and psychometric function, as well as through patient-reported outcomes and assessments of health-related quality of life. Mixed leukocyte and granulocyte cystine concentration measures have been part of cystinosis standard of care treatment for the past two decades, and changes in the average level of cystine in granulocytes from baseline was originally a primary endpoint of the clinical trial of AVR-RD-04. However, we and our collaborators at UCSD determined that cystine concentration in leukocytes and granulocytes, which is used to monitor small molecule therapies, is not appropriate to represent the mechanism of action of a gene therapy. As a result, the protocol for this clinical trial was amended in 2020 to retain safety and tolerability as the primary endpoint, as is appropriate for this stage of development, and shift measurement of cystine in granulocytes to a secondary endpoint. Because this is a collaborator-sponsored clinical, the study drug is not manufactured using our plato platform, and neither the automated, closed manufacturing system nor LV2 is used in connection with this clinical trial. As of December 1, 2021, the first three patients in the trial had discontinued and remained off oral cysteamine, with the first patient out to 26 months post-treatment. Additionally, the first and third patients had discontinued and remained off cysteamine eye drops as of December 1, 2021. The second patient in the trial, who had stopped cysteamine eye drops one-month post-treatment with AVR-RD-04 per the trial protocol, resumed cysteamine eye drops in July 2021. Vector Copy Number In February 2022 we presented interim VCN data for the first three patients dosed in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial. At 27 months post-treatment with AVR-RD-04, the first patient exhibited VCN level of 1.03, and at 12 months post-treatment the second and third patients exhibited VCN level of 1.52 and 2.59, respectively. 9 Cystine Crystals in Skin and Rectal Biopsy Tissues Skin and rectal biopsies were performed on the first three patients at baseline and post-treatment with AVR-RD-04. The data from the biopsies are intended to show the average skin intracytoplasmic crystals per cell, which is a measurement of the number of toxic crystals in each cell. In February 2022, we announced that at 12-months post-treatment the first three patients’ skin biopsies exhibited a 35%, 64% and 81% reduction, respectively, in average intracytoplasmic crystals per cell. At 12- and 18-months post-treatment, the first patient’s rectal biopsies exhibited a 76% and 53% reduction, respectively, in average intracytoplasmic crystals per cell as compared to baseline. The rectal biopsies for the second and third patients at 12-months post-treatment exhibited reductions of 28% and 86%, respectively, in average intracytoplasmic crystals per cell as compared to baseline. Previously, we reported measurements of the occupancy of cytoplasmic volume from skin and rectal biopsies from the first patient, who exhibited reductions of 72% and 87%, respectively, in each case at 12-months post-treatment as compared to the patient’s baseline levels. We believe these data suggest that the first three patients are producing an endogenous supply of functional cystinosin that is reducing the accumulation of toxic cystine crystals. Levels of Cystine in Cornea Levels of corneal cystine crystals are being assessed in this clinical trial using IVCM. In February 2022, we presented a set of images of the first patient’s cornea measured at baseline and 18-months post-administration. The baseline IVCM images were taken using a Nidek ConfoScan microscope and the subsequent images were taken using a Heidelberg (HRT3) with Rostock Cornea Module microscope. Each of the post-treatment images showed a noticeable decline in the presence of corneal crystals. The images were preliminarily scored by a physician, on a scale of zero to four, to quantify crystal deposition in each corneal layer of the central cornea. At baseline, the preliminary scoring for the first patient was 4.0 across all three eye layers in both eyes, and at 12-months post-treatment the scores for the anterior stroma, middle stroma and posterior stroma of the right eye were 3.0, 3.0 and 2.13, respectively, and 1.86, 1.71 and 2.0, respectively, for the left eye. Kidney Function Assessment of kidney function includes measurements of serum creatinine, or sCR, and eGFR, which is determined using the CKD-EPI formula. The first patient in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial exhibited an eGFR value of 36.3 mL/min/1.73m 2 at 19 months post-treatment as compared to a baseline value of 55 mL/min/1.73m 2 . This patient’s eGFR values had been trending downward in the three years prior to administration of AVR-RD-04. We expect this patient’s eGFR levels to continue declining at a level consistent with the irreversible nature of nephropathic cystinosis. At six months post-treatment the second patient in the clinical trial, who received two kidney transplants prior to treatment in the clinical trial, exhibited an eGFR value of 81 mL/min/1.73m 2 as compared to a baseline value of 71 mL/min/1.73m 2 . Safety Data As of the safety cut-off date of December 12, 2021, preliminary interim clinical data for the first four patients dosed in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial appear to indicate that the AVR-RD-04 investigational gene therapy has been generally well tolerated with no unexpected safety events identified. There have been no reports of safety events attributed to the AVR-RD-04 drug product. As of the safety data cut-off date of December 12, 2021, one serious adverse event, or SAE, of appendicitis was reported, which occurred post-treatment and was deemed by the investigator to be unrelated to AVR-RD-04 or the treatment procedures. A total of 84 adverse events, or AEs, were reported as of the safety cut-off date of December 12, 2021, a majority of which were reported by the investigator to be moderate or mild. All reported AEs were consistent with expectations for the underlying disease, stem cell mobilization and conditioning regimen prescribed by the study protocol. The foregoing data on the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-04 have been provided by our collaborators at UCSD and are subject to change. Additionally, because this clinical trial is ongoing, safety and efficacy data are preliminary and subject to change. As is typical in open-label studies in which interim reports are provided, the data are regularly reviewed and validated. As a result, certain data may change over time, including reductions or increases in the number of reported safety events, until the database is locked at the end of the study. AVR-RD-02, Our Gene Therapy for Gaucher Disease Type 1 We are developing AVR-RD-02 for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 1. We plan to manufacture AVR-RD-02 from hematopoietic stem cells that are first harvested from the patient, modified to add the gene that encodes for glucocerebrosidase, or GCase, and then infused into the patient. Patient enrollment has commenced for the Phase 1/2 Guard1 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 in patients with Gaucher disease type 1, and as of March 1, 2022 we have dosed three patients. The Guard1 trial is actively recruiting additional potential patients for our currently active sites . 10 Disease Overview Gaucher disease type 1 is the non-neuronopathic form of Gaucher disease, a rare, autosomal recessive, lysosomal disorder caused by a hereditary deficiency of functional GCase, an enzyme responsible for degrading glucocerebroside, a cell membrane building block, into glucose and lipids within lysosomes of cells. In patients with Gaucher disease type 1, the recycling of glucocerebroside from the breakdown of old red and white blood cells is inhibited, leading to its accumulation in macrophages. These abnormal macrophages, known as Gaucher cells, accumulate in multiple organs, particularly the liver, spleen and bone marrow. Gaucher disease type 1 is one of the most common lysosomal disorders. It is diagnosed in approximately one in 44,000 births worldwide and is more prevalent in certain ethnic groups, such as people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage. Approximately 90% of patients suffering from Gaucher disease in western countries have Gaucher disease type 1, which manifests as multiple morbidities including enlargement of the spleen and liver, low red blood cells, or anemia, low platelet count, or thrombocytopenia, and bone abnormalities including bone pain, fractures and arthritis. Bruising, risk of bleeding and fatigue are common due to the thrombocytopenia and anemia. Compared with the general population, patients with Gaucher disease type 1 have an approximately 20-fold increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Gaucher disease type 1 does not have manifestations of central nervous system symptoms. Limitations of Current Therapies Gaucher disease type 1 is currently treated with bi-weekly infusions of ERT consisting of recombinant GCase over a patient’s lifetime. The most commonly prescribed ERTs for Gaucher disease are Cerezyme, marketed by Sanofi Genzyme, and VPRIV, marketed by Shire. Although long-term ERT for Gaucher disease type 1 results in some therapeutic benefit, ERTs leave patients with significant unmet needs. Twenty-five percent of patients with Gaucher disease continue to experience physical limitations following two years of ERT, and a clinically significant percentage of patients continue to experience bone pain, thrombocytopenia and enlargement of spleen following ten years of ERT. In a published study of ERT therapy for Gaucher disease type 1, six target goals were evaluated, including parameters for hemoglobin and platelet levels, spleen and liver volumes, and general bone pain and severe disabling bone pain known as bone crisis. Following at least four years of ERT in this study, approximately 60% of patients failed to achieve one or more of these six target goals. In addition to ERTs, the FDA has approved several oral therapies for the treatment of Gaucher disease, including Zavesca (miglustat) marketed by Actelion and Cerdelga (eliglustat) marketed by Sanofi Genzyme. We believe these oral therapies also provide suboptimal treatment. Zavesca is approved as a second line therapy and is associated with significant toxicities, including diarrhea, weight loss and tremors. Cerdelga is not approved for use in children, has highly variable metabolism due to patient-to-patient genetic variations and is highly susceptible to interactions with other drugs. Both ERTs and oral therapies for Gaucher type 1 impose significant costs on the healthcare system. We estimate that the average five-year cost to the healthcare system per Gaucher patient (all types) prescribed standard of care treatment in the United States is approximately $2.3 million. In 2021, Sanofi Genzyme’s Cerezyme and Cerdelga together generated worldwide net sales of approximately €937 million euros and Takeda’s VPRIV generated worldwide net sales of approximately ¥41.9 billion Japanese yen. Our Solution We are developing AVR-RD-02 to potentially provide a functional cure to patients with Gaucher disease type 1 with a single dose of the patient’s own hematopoietic stem cells modified in an ex vivo procedure. AVR-RD-02 is a lentiviral-based gene therapy that contains a codon-optimized human gene and is designed to maximize the likelihood of sustained GCase production in hematopoietic stem cells and their progeny. Ongoing Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial (Guard1) We have initiated our Guard1 Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 in patients with Gaucher disease type 1. Patient enrollment has commenced, and as of March 1, 2022, three patients have been dosed. This clinical trial is actively recruiting additional potential patients for our currently active sites . Our initial clinical trial is open to treatment-naïve patients; patients that have been stable on ERT for at least 24 months; and patients who have not received ERT or substrate reduction therapy, or SRT, in the past 12 months. We intend to enroll eight to 16 patients, between the ages of 18 and 50, with Gaucher disease type 1. Patients currently prescribed ERT will cease treatment for the duration of the clinical trial. All enrolled patients will 11 receive a single treatment with AVR-RD-02 and will be followed for 52 weeks to measure safety and efficacy. We intend to utilize our plato platform for all patients enrolling in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02. Our efficacy endpoints for this clinical trial will include visceral domain and hematologic measures such as liver and spleen volumes, hemoglobin, platelet counts, bone pain and bone density measures, and quality of life measures along with critical biological blood markers used to track the disease progression in Gaucher disease type 1. In February 2021 we presented data on the first patient in the Guard1 clinical trial, which are described below. We currently expect to provide an update on interim clinical data in 2022. Vector Copy Number In February 2021 we presented VCN data for the first patient dosed in the Guard1 trial. At six months post-treatment, the patient exhibited a VCN of 0.6. In addition, at three months post-treatment an exploratory assessment of VCN in specific cell populations showed a VCN ≥ 0.7 in the myeloid cell lines, which we believe could be indicative of transgene presence in the macrophages, the essential cell impacted in Gaucher patients. Plasma Lyso-Gb1 Reductions Glucosylsphingosine, or lyso-Gb1, is considered a surrogate marker for disease activity and treatment response for Gaucher disease type 1. In the case of ERT-naïve patients and patients who have discontinued ERT, we believe that reductions in lyso-Gb1 levels following treatment with gene therapy are likely driven by the therapeutic effect of gene therapy. In February 2021, we announced that the first patient in our Guard1 clinical trial exhibited a 44% reduction in plasma lyso-Gb1 levels six months post-administration of AVR-RD-02 as compared to baseline while on ERT. In this study baseline ERT is the measurement of a single plasma lyso-Gb1 value observed prior to initiating mobilization. Plasma Chitotriosidase Reductions Chitotriosidase is a biomarker of macrophage activation that is found in high levels in Gaucher patients where the macrophages have accumulated an excess lipid burden. In February 2021, we announced that at six months post-treatment with AVR-RD-02 the first patient in the Guard1 clinical trial exhibited a 49% reduction in chitotriosidase levels as compared to baseline while on ERT. In this study baseline ERT is the measurement of a single chitotriosidase value observed prior to initiating mobilization. Hemoglobin Concentration and Platelet Counts Gaucher disease type 1 typically causes patients to have low levels of hemoglobin and platelets. In February 2021, we presented data on the hemoglobin and platelet levels of the first patient dosed in the Guard1 clinical trial at screening, baseline and six months post-administration of AVR-RD-02. The baseline measurement was taken one month prior to discontinuation of ERT. At screening, baseline and six months post-treatment, the patient’s platelet counts were 455x10 9 /L, 432x10 9 /L and 351 x10 9 /L, respectively, and the patient’s hemoglobin concentration was 12.5 g/dL, 11.2 g/dL and 12.2 g/dL, respectively. Both six-month measurements are within the normal range for a healthy individual. Safety As of the most recent safety cut-off date of August 31, 2021, preliminary interim clinical data for the first patient dosed in the Guard1 clinical trial appear to indicate that the AVR-RD-02 investigational gene therapy has been generally well tolerated with no unexpected safety events identified. There have been no reports of safety events attributed to the AVR-RD-02 drug product, and no SAEs were reported as of the safety data cut-off date. A total of 37 AEs were reported as of the safety cut-off date, 11 of which were Grade 3 or 4 and 26 of which were Grade 1 or 2. All reported AEs were consistent with expectations for the underlying disease, conditioning regimen and drugs mandated by the study protocol or procedures. As of the safety cut-off date of August 31, 2021, all AEs had resolved except for one AE of amenorrhea which remained unresolved and ongoing. Because this clinical trial is ongoing, safety and efficacy data are preliminary and subject to change. As is typical in open-label studies in which interim reports are provided, the data are regularly reviewed and validated. As a result, certain data may change over time, including reductions or increases in the number of reported safety events, until the database is locked at the end of the study. 12 AVR-RD-05, Our Gene Therapy for Hunter Syndrome We are developing AVR-RD-05 for the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis type II (MPSII), or Hunter syndrome. AVR-RD-05 involves ex vivo transduction of the patient’s own hematopoietic stem cells with a therapeutic transgene, in-licensed from the University of Manchester, or UoM, designed to express functional iduronate 2-sulfatase, or IDS, which is the enzyme the patient needs to maintain cellular health, coupled to a proprietary ApoE2 protein tag that is designed to improve stability of the enzyme in the bloodstream and facilitate uptake by tissues. AVR-RD-05 will be studied by our collaborators at UoM, and a Phase 1/2 investigator-sponsored clinical trial of AVR-RD-05 is expected to be initiated in 2023. Disease Overview Hunter syndrome disease is a rare, recessive lysosomal disorder caused by a mutation in the gene that encodes for IDS that results in accumulation of the glycosaminoglycans heparan and dermatan sulfate. Hunter syndrome affects a multitude of organs and is a chronic and progressive multi‐system disorder. Clinical manifestations in Hunter syndrome include skeletal abnormalities, known as dysostosis multiplex, short stature, joint stiffness, and hepatosplenomegaly, accompanied by cardiorespiratory symptoms. Severe cases of Hunter syndrome, which are most common, also feature progressive neurodegeneration, typically followed by death in teenage years due to obstructive airway disease and cardiac failure. Hunter syndrome is an X-linked disorder, meaning the gene that is responsible is located on the X chromosome. Because males have only one X chromosome, an abnormal copy of the gene that causes Hunter syndrome is sufficient to cause the disease. The overall diagnosed incidence of Hunter syndrome is estimated to be approximately one in 100,000 to one in 170,000 males worldwide. Limitations of Current Therapies Hunter syndrome is currently treated with ERT delivered by weekly intravenous infusion. The only approved therapy for Hunter syndrome is Elaprase, marketed by Shire, which generated worldwide net sales of approximately ¥75 billion Japanese yen in 2021. We estimate that the average five-year cost to the healthcare system per Hunter patient prescribed standard of care treatment in the United States is approximately $2.4 million. Two-thirds of patients experience developmental and neurological decline, which is often noted by approximately age two. Due to lack of newborn screening, diagnosis usually occurs much later in patient’s lives, around five years of age and can be as late as eight years. Although patients typically begin ERT treatment almost immediately after diagnosis, often the disease symptoms are far advanced and ERT is insufficient to halt the disease progression. ERT does not treat the neurological symptoms of the disease, and therefore a significant unmet need remains in a majority of patients with Hunter syndrome. Furthermore, anti-ERT antibodies are a limitation for a significant part of the patient population. Our Solution We, together with our collaborators at UoM, are developing AVR-RD-05 to potentially provide a functional cure to patients with Hunter syndrome. AVR-RD-05 is intended to be a gene therapy product containing a codon-optimized human gene for IDS attached to a ApoE2 protein tag designed to increase the cells’ secretion of IDS to potentially restore healthy cellular function, stabilize the secreted IDS so it has a longer half-life, and facilitate uptake of IDS into the brain. In addition, we believe that the utilization of busulfan in our conditioning regimen may have the potential to allow AVR-RD-05 to cross the blood-brain barrier, a feature which may yield therapeutic benefit. Preclinical Data In November 2020, we presented previously published preclinical data on AVR-RD-05. The study presented data from normal study mice, mice affected with the equivalent of Hunter syndrome, mice treated with AVR-RD-05 modified to not incorporate the ApoE2 protein tag, and mice treated with AVR-RD-05 incorporating the proprietary ApoE2 tag. These data demonstrated the effect of AVR-RD-05 on levels and composition of heparan sulfate in the brain, neuro-inflammatory pathologies, facial and skeletal abnormalities, as well as cognitive performance and sensorimotor coordination and balance. We believe these data support the potential of AVR-RD-05 to treat this progressive disease, and potentially prevent the onset of severe symptoms if treated early. 13 Planned P hase 1/2 Investigator-Sponsored Clinical Trial Our collaborators at UoM plan to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in 2023. The Phase 1/2 clinical trial is expected to enroll five male patients, age three months to 12 months, with an early progressive form of the disease. The clinical trial is expected to be open to treatment-naïve patients as well as patients currently on ERT. The clinical trial’s primary endpoints are expected to be safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints to assess preliminary efficacy are expected to include measurements of peripheral expression of IDS activity in plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF, and leukocytes; heparin sulfate concentration in CSF, plasma and urine; VCN per diploid genome, proportion of cells containing the inserted gene in total bone marrow colony forming units; cognitive function; and various behavioral and quality of life measurements. Because this is an investigator-sponsored clinical, the study drug will not be manufactured using our plato platform, and neither the automated, closed manufacturing system nor LV2 will be used in connection with this clinical trial. AVR-RD-06, Our Gene Therapy for Gaucher disease type 3 AVR-RD-06 is our gene therapy program for Gaucher disease type 3. Gaucher disease type 3 is the subacute neurological form of Gaucher disease characterized by progressive encephalopathy and associated with the systemic manifestations of Gaucher type 1. As with Gaucher type 1, Gaucher type 3 disease is caused by a gene that codes for the enzyme glucocerebrosidase. The deficiency in glucocerebrosidase leads to the accumulation of Gb1 and its toxic metabolite, lyso-Gb1. AVR-RD-06 is expected to use the same vector and drug product that we use in AVR-RD-02, our investigational gene therapy for Gaucher disease type 1. We currently expect to engage with regulators in 2022 to discuss a path to the clinic, including a potential Phase 2/3 clinical trial. Disease Overview Gaucher disease type 3 is the subacute, chronic neurological form of Gaucher disease, a rare, autosomal recessive, lysosomal disorder caused by a hereditary deficiency of functional GCase, an enzyme responsible for degrading glucocerebroside, a cell membrane building block, into glucose and lipids within lysosomes of cells. In patients with Gaucher type 3 disease, the recycling of glucocerebroside from the breakdown of old red and white blood cells is inhibited, leading to its accumulation in macrophages. These abnormal macrophages, known as Gaucher cells, accumulate in multiple organs, particularly the liver, spleen and bone marrow. In addition, glucosylceramide accumulates in perivascular macrophages and brain glial cells and neurons leading to neuronal death. Clinically, central nervous system manifestations of Gaucher disease type 3 appear in childhood or adolescence, typically within the latter part of the first decade for the majority of patients, although the course of disease is markedly heterogenous. Gaucher disease type 3 is estimated to occur in one in 100,000-300,00 births and is more prevalent in certain ethnic groups, such as people of Swedish Norrbottnian descent. Systemic manifestations of Gaucher disease type 3 may include enlargement of the spleen and liver, low red blood cells, or anemia, low platelet count, or thrombocytopenia, and bone abnormalities including bone pain, fractures and arthritis. Bruising, risk of bleeding and fatigue are common due to the thrombocytopenia and anemia. Variable other features of Gaucher disease type 3 include pulmonary infiltrates and esophageal varices associated with liver cirrhosis. Presentation of diverse neurologic features may begin at any time during infancy and early childhood with the most prevalent finding of horizontal supranuclear gaze palsy. Other manifestations of neurological disease include generalized seizures, myoclonus, ataxia, and/or dementia. Limitations of Current Therapies Current therapies used to treat Gaucher disease type 1, namely, ERT and SRT, do not penetrate the brain and therefore have no effect on the neurological aspects of Gaucher disease type 3. The most commonly prescribed ERTs for Gaucher disease are Cerezyme, marketed by Sanofi Genzyme, and VPRIV, marketed by Shire. Patients with Gaucher disease type 3 may exhibit wide variation of disease progression with the severity of systemic disease and neurological deficits differing considerably between patients. In a published study of SRT therapy for Gaucher disease type 3, no significant benefits were demonstrated on the neurological manifestations of Gaucher disease type 3. Although long-term ERT for Gaucher disease type 3 results in some therapeutic benefit on visceral, hematological and bone manifestations, ERTs leave patients with significant unmet needs owing to persisting accumulation of substrate within the central nervous system. Following 10 years of ERT, two patients’ epilepsy had worsened while a third patient developed epilepsy around eight years after treatment initiation. Another published study on ERT showed that enzyme infusions had no effect on patients with myoclonus and approximately 40% of patients deteriorated neurologically during a median 3.5 year follow-up period. 14 Our Solution We are developing AVR-RD-06 to potentially provide a functional cure to patients with Gaucher disease type 3 with a single dose of the patient’s own hematopoietic stem cells modified in an ex vivo procedure. AVR-RD-06 is a lentiviral-based gene therapy that contains a codon-optimized human gene and is designed to maximize the likelihood of sustained GCase production in hematopoietic stem cells and their progeny. Preclinical Data In November 2020, we presented preclinical data from a mouse study which we believe demonstrate the potential of lentiviral gene therapy to repopulate the microglia compartment of the brain with microglia cells carrying the therapeutic gene. We also presented preclinical data demonstrating a technique that potentially allows us to examine individual cells in the brain to determine which cell types contain the therapeutic gene. Finally, we presented data comparing the genetically modified microglia and endogenous microglia, which we believe suggest that even though the modified cells are not native to the brain, they do not act as “invaders” and thus could be expected to carry out normal physiological functions. AVR-RD-03, Our Gene Therapy for Pompe Disease We are developing AVR-RD-03 for the treatment of Pompe disease. We will manufacture AVR-RD-03 from hematopoietic stem cells that are first harvested from the patient, modified to add the gene that encodes for acid alpha glucosidase A, or GAA, attached to a peptide sequence known as a glycosylation-independent lysosomal targeting, or GILT, tag and then infused into the patient. AVR-RD-03 will incorporate a GILT tag because the GILT tag has been found to increase the uptake of GAA into cells, especially in muscle cells by a multiple of 25, which is a particularly important target tissue for patients with Pompe disease and a target tissue that is considered difficult to access for ERT. AVR-RD-03 is designed to incorporate a potent promoter to increase volume of system enzyme in circulation. Disease Overview Pompe disease is a rare, autosomal recessive lysosomal disorder caused by a mutation in the gene that encodes for GAA that results in the buildup of glycogen, a complex sugar, in the body’s cells. The accumulation of glycogen in certain organs and tissues, especially muscles, impairs normal tissue and organ function. Patients with Pompe disease experience serious muscle related problems, including progressive muscle weakness, especially in the legs and trunk, and the muscles that control breathing. As the disorder progresses, breathing problems can lead to respiratory failure. The overall diagnosed incidence of Pompe disease is estimated to be approximately one in 58,000 people although frequency and disease progression varies with age of onset, ethnicity and geography. Overall diagnosed incidence of Pompe disease is projected to increase to one in 22,000 people as it is increasingly included in newborn screening panels. The severity of Pompe disease symptoms and rate of progression is highly variable and correlated with age of symptom onset and the degree of enzyme deficiency. Infantile or early onset disease, the most severe form of Pompe disease, accounts for approximately 25% of all affected patients. Those with early-onset disease are usually diagnosed in the first few months of life and is associated with cardiomyopathy. Left untreated, these patients can die due to heart failure, respiratory distress or malnutrition resulting from feeding difficulties within the first year of life. Patients with late-onset disease typically have higher enzyme levels and usually have symptoms such as reduced mobility and respiratory problems but are not at increased risk of developing cardiomyopathy. Late-onset patients experience progressive difficulty walking and respiratory decline. While life expectancy can vary, Pompe disease is a life-limiting disease that can result in death due to complications from respiratory failure. Limitations of Current Therapies Pompe disease is currently treated with ERT delivered by bi-weekly intravenous infusion. The only approved therapy for Pompe disease is Lumizyme (known as Myozyme outside of the United States), marketed by Sanofi Genzyme, which generated worldwide net sales of approximately €1.0 billion euros in 2021. We estimate that the average five-year cost to the healthcare system per Pompe patient prescribed standard of care treatment in the United States is approximately $3.2 million. 15 Though patients treated with ERT for Pompe disease have improved survival and respiratory function, ERT is not curative, and patients in long-term observational studies continue to have increased risk of heart failure and have residual muscle weakness including difficulties swallowing with risk of aspiration. One challenge with ERT treatment for Pompe disease is that a standard dose requires approximately twenty-fold more enzyme compared to standard doses for Fabry or Gaucher diseases. Large doses of Lumizyme that are delivered systemically in order to achieve potentially therapeutic levels in the target tissues result in approximately 90% of patients developing antibodies against the therapy. These antibody responses may impact both the efficacy and safety of Lumizyme. The FDA approval of Lumizyme carries a black box warning related to the risk of severe allergic and immune mediated reactions, including life-threatening anaphylaxis. Our Solution Our AVR-RD-03 program for Pompe disease has completed planned preclinical development, and we are planning to engage with regulatory authorities this year to discuss a potential path to the clinic with the goal of initiating a clinical trial in 2023. We are developing AVR-RD-03 to be a gene therapy product containing a codon-optimized human gene for GAA attached to a GILT tag designed to increase uptake of GAA in muscle cells. AVR-RD-03 will target patients with late onset Pompe disease, which represent the majority of patients with this disease. In addition, we believe that the utilization of busulfan in our conditioning regimen may have the potential to allow AVR-RD-03 to cross the blood-brain barrier, a feature which may yield therapeutic benefit. Preclinical Data In November 2020 we presented data from a study in which mice with the equivalent of classic infantile-onset Pompe disease were treated with AVR-RD-03. We these data believe support the potential of lentiviral-based gene expression of GAA to prevent some of the symptoms of GAA deficiency. These results also demonstrated the need to further increase the uptake of GAA into muscle cells to treat patients, which is a known challenge for ERTs and leads to the use of large quantities of enzyme to attempt to deliver effective treatment levels. We believe we can use a GILT tag to address the known challenges of skeletal muscle uptake in patients with Pompe disease. Attachment of a GILT tag to a particular protein can increase the effective uptake of that protein into target tissues. We are designing AVR-RD-03 to use a GILT tag to facilitate GAA uptake into cells and thereby reduce the therapeutically required amount of GAA produced by a patient’s cells following gene therapy treatment. In mouse models of Pompe, administration of recombinant GAA with the GILT tag demonstrated significant reduction in glycogen in cardiac and skeletal muscles as compared to the administration of recombinant GAA alone. We licensed GILT tag technology from BioMarin and are incorporating a GILT tag into our lentiviral vector with the goal of the patient producing GILT-tagged GAA following treatment with AVR-RD-03. GAA Enzyme Production Our preclinical study measured the levels of GAA observed in normal mice, mice with the equivalent of infantile-onset Pompe disease, mice treated with AVR-RD-03 modified to not incorporate our proprietary GILT tag, and mice treated with AVR-RD-03 including our GILT tag, in each case measured 16 weeks post-treatment. These data showed significant overexpression of GAA in bone marrow, white blood cells and plasma in mice treated with AVR-RD-03 without our GILT tag as well as AVR-RD-03 incorporating our GILT tag. 16 Glycogen Reduction Our preclinical study also measured glycogen levels in the heart and brain at four months post-treatment with our GILT-tagged version of AVR-RD-03, which showed a 99% and 100% reduction, respectively, in glycogen levels. In addition, our study measured glycogen levels in various organs of the study mice at eight months post-treatment. The data showed an average of greater than 99% reduction in glycogen levels in the heart, greater than 97% reduction in the diaphragm, greater than 85% reduction in skeletal muscle, greater than 95% reduction in the brain, and greater than 99% reduction in the spinal cord. Manufacturing Industrializing Our Gene Therapies Through Our Outsourced Manufacture and Supply Network We have established manufacturing relationships that we believe will provide us with drug product manufacturing capabilities to support all aspects of the development and eventual commercialization of our gene therapies. Our team has leveraged their broad expertise in the manufacturing of gene and cellular therapies to build a network of CMO partners for the development and manufacture of drug products and outsourced suppliers for the supply of vectors and plasmids. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on sole source suppliers for vector supply, plasmid supply and cell culture media. In addition, although we have historically relied on multiple CMO partners for drug product manufacturing, we currently plan to use a sole source CMO as the provider of drug product for our ongoing and future Company-sponsored clinical trials. However, we believe that our third-party CMO partner and suppliers have capacity to accommodate current and future clinical trials and we are continuing to build a network that we expect will have capacity to generate sufficient quantities to meet our expected commercial needs. To optimize production of our gene therapies, we have moved our cell processing to an automated, closed system using disposable supplies. We believe this industrialized manufacturing process will enable a repeatable approach through which we can design and manufacture commercially viable ex vivo lentiviral gene therapies to potentially treat a large variety of genetic disorders. We expect that our automation of the manufacturing processes will further increase our CMO partners’ manufacturing capacity. Producing a Patient’s Gene Therapy We start the process to produce a patient’s gene therapy with the mobilization of a patient’s stem cells from the bone marrow to the blood stream and collect them via apheresis, a standard procedure used in stem cell transplants. The apheresis material is then transported to the manufacturing facility where we isolate the stem cells and treat these cells with a lentiviral vector to insert the equivalent of a functional copy of the gene that is mutated in the target disease. The manufacturing process typically takes approximately three days to complete. We preserve patients’ modified cells at a very low temperature, using cryopreservation to maintain the cellular material in optimal condition until it is thawed prior to being infused into the patient. Cryopreservation of the product allows for long-term storage and the ability to conduct a number of quality control tests to validate the modified cells prior to introducing them into the patient. We believe cryopreservation will also enable us to supply our products globally, as well as significantly increase the convenience of infusion scheduling for clinicians and patients, compared to fresh ex vivo gene therapy products that may have shelf-lives of only 24 hours. Prior to infusion of the gene therapy-modified cells into the patient, the patients undergo a conditioning regimen to remove some of the patient’s unmodified cells from the bone marrow to create sufficient space for the modified hematopoietic stem cells to engraft and produce their progeny. After the conditioning regimen is complete, the ex vivo lentiviral-modified stem cells are infused into the patient by intravenous administration. After infusion, these cells are expected to engraft into the bone marrow, replicate and differentiate into all the various types of blood cells that will distribute throughout the body. These widely distributed cells potentially lead to sustained expression of the desired therapeutic enzyme or protein. The sustained expression of the functional enzyme or protein is a direct substitute for the protein currently delivered by ERTs, which require periodic infusions. Intellectual Property and Other Barriers to Entry The proprietary nature of, or protection for, our gene therapy technology, our product candidates, our production methods and supply chain are an important part of our strategy to develop and commercialize novel therapies. To maximize 17 the commercial opportunity for our gene therapies, if approved, we and our partners have been building and continue to build barriers to entry by our competitors, including: • We in-license and develop know-how, including data, relating to certain of our product candidates. • We rely on trade secret protection to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. • Our management team has significant experience in cell processing and commercial-scale cellular therapy manufacturing. Leveraging this experience, we are building our global network of suppliers and CMO partners which combines their expertise in vector manufacturing with a closed, automated manufacturing system, all utilizing cGMP. • Our gene therapies are designed to potentially provide a curative benefit. If our gene therapies are approved before any other potentially curative treatments, we believe the benefits of our approach and the resulting first mover advantage may provide meaningful disincentive for companies seeking to develop potentially curative therapies that may compete with our own. See “—Competition.” • We are developing therapies to treat rare diseases and expect to pursue orphan-drug designation in the United States and similar protection outside of the United States. To date, the FDA and the European Commission have each granted orphan drug designation to AVR-RD-01 for the treatment of Fabry disease, AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis, and AVR-RD-02 for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 1. These and other regulatory exclusivities, if granted or applicable, can prevent competitors, during the exclusivity period, from obtaining regulatory approval of the same drug or biological product for the same indication. See “—Government Regulation.” • We currently in-license patents and patent applications relating to certain of our product candidates. We have also filed our own patent applications, which are positioned to further protect certain of our product candidates. We have in-licensed patents and patent applications from BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., GenStem Therapeutics, Inc. and The University of Manchester directed to compositions and methods related to the manufacture and use of certain of our gene therapies. In addition, we have in-licensed certain intellectual property rights and know-how from the University Health Network and affiliates of Lund University. For example, we have in-licensed know-how and data related to AVR-RD-01, including certain information about the vector and its use, from University Health Network, and we have in-licensed know-how and data related to AVR-RD-02, including certain information about the vector and its use, from certain academic scientists affiliated with Lund University. Each of our licenses are limited to particular fields, such as Fabry disease, Gaucher disease type 1, Pompe disease, cystinosis, or Hunter syndrome, and are subject to certain retained rights. We do not control the prosecution and maintenance of all of our in-licensed patents and patent applications, and our rights to enforce the patents are limited in certain ways. For additional detail regarding the risks associated with our license agreements see “ Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property. ” As of March 1, 2022, our in-licensed patent portfolio relating to certain of our gene therapies included the following: • AVR-RD-03 (Pompe program) : two U.S. patents, projected to expire in 2022 and 2023, and one U.S. patent application, which if granted, would be projected to expire in 2029, as well as corresponding patents and patent applications in certain foreign jurisdictions, as they pertain to compositions and methods for promoting lysosomal uptake of acid alpha-glucosidase and the treatment of Pompe disease. These patents and patent applications are licensed to us by BioMarin and relate to the GILT tag. • AVR-RD-04 (cystinosis program) : one U.S. patent application, which, if granted, would be projected to expire in 2038, as well as corresponding patents and patent applications in certain foreign jurisdictions, containing claims directed to hematopoietic stem cells expressing cystinosin and methods of using the same for the treatment of cystinosis. These patent applications are licensed to us by GenStem Therapeutics, and GenStem obtained its rights from the University of California, San Diego. • AVR-RD-05 (Hunter program) : one U.S. patent application, which, if granted, would be projected to expire in 2038, as well as corresponding patents and patent applications in certain foreign jurisdictions, containing claims directed to gene therapy vectors encoding iduronate-2-sulfatase and methods of using the same for the treatment of Hunter syndrome. These patent applications are licensed to us by the University of Manchester. As of March 1, 2022, our Company-owned patent portfolio also included the following: 18 • AVR-RD-03 (Pompe program) : one international (PCT) application, which , if granted in the U.S. , would be projected to expire in 2041 , containing claims directed to CD34+ stem cells expressing acid alpha-glucosidase and methods of using the same for the treatment of Pompe disease. The term of any given patent depends upon the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing the application, subject to the timely payment of maintenance fees, among other considerations. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed commonly owned patent. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of FDA regulatory review period. However, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. In certain foreign jurisdictions similar extensions as compensation for regulatory delays are also available. The actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a claim by claim and country by country basis for each applicable product and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. Currently, we do not own or license patents or patent applications related to our AVR-RD-01, AVR-RD-02 or AVR-RD-06 product candidates. We rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets and unpatented know-how that is either owned by or licensed to us to protect our technology. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. License Agreements License Agreement with The University of Manchester In September 2020, we entered into an agreement, or the MPSII License Agreement, with The University of Manchester, England, or UoM, whereby UoM granted us an exclusive worldwide license under certain patent and other intellectual property rights, subject to certain retained rights, to develop, commercialize and sell an ex vivo lentiviral gene therapy for use in the treatment of Hunter syndrome, or mucopolysaccharidosis type II . As consideration for the MPSII License Agreement, we agreed to pay UoM an upfront, one-time fee of $8.0 million. As part of the agreement, we are obligated to make milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $80.0 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, to pay royalties, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, of a mid-single digit percentage based on net sales of products licensed under the agreement and to pay a low double-digit percentage of any sublicense fees received by us. The next anticipated payment milestones under the MPSII License Agreement include $2.0 million, which would become due following the date of regulatory approval of the clinical trial application for the investigator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial sponsored by UoM, and $4.0 million, upon the dosing of the first patient in the investigator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial sponsored by UoM. Unless terminated earlier, the agreement expires upon the later of 15 years from the effective date or the expiration of the last valid claim of the licensed patents, subject to certain surviving rights and obligations. We and UoM can each terminate the agreement in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of the other party, or a material breach by the other party and failure to cure such breach within a certain period of time. UoM has the right to terminate the agreement in the event of certain actions relating to challenge or opposition to the licensed intellectual property brought us or its affiliates or sublicensees. Concurrently with the MPSII License Agreement, we entered into a collaborative research funding agreement with UoM, or the CRFA. Under the CRFA, we have agreed to fund the budgeted costs of an investigator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial to be sponsored by UoM in connection with the development activities under the MPSII License Agreement, which are currently estimated to equal approximately £9.9 million in the aggregate. 19 Exclusive License Agreement with University Health Network In November 2016, we entered into a license agreement with University Health Network, or UHN, pursuant to which UHN granted us an exclusive worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights and a non-exclusive worldwide license under certain know-how, including certain rights to data, in each case subject to certain retained rights, to develop, commercialize and sell products for use in the treatment of Fabry disease. Intellectual property licensed to us under this agreement relates to our Fabry program. In addition, for three years following the execution of the agreement, UHN granted us an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive license under certain improvements to the licensed intellectual property rights as well as an exclusive option to negotiate a license under certain other improvements. Under the terms of the agreement, we are required to meet certain performance milestones within specified timeframes. UHN may terminate the agreement if we fail to meet these performance milestones despite using commercially reasonable efforts and we are unable to reach agreement with UHN on revised timeframes. As consideration for the licenses, we paid to UHN a one-time upfront fee in the amount of CAD$75,000 and are obligated to pay an additional annual fee until the first sale of a licensed product in certain markets. We are also required to make payments to UHN in connection with the achievement of certain development and regulatory milestones, in an aggregate amount of CAD$2.45 million, as well as royalties on a country-by-country basis of a low to mid-single digit percentages on annual sales of licensed products and a lower single digit royalty in certain circumstances. Additionally, we will pay a low double-digit percentage of all sublicensing revenue. Our royalty obligation expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the latest to occur of the expiration or termination of the last valid claim under the licensed patent rights in such country (if and when any such patent rights come into existence under the license agreement in the future), the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country and the expiration of any applicable regulatory exclusivity in such country. In addition, under this agreement we made a philanthropic commitment to donate funds to organizations for the benefit of the Canadian Fabry community in an amount equal to a low double-digit percentage of our royalty payments and regulatory milestone payments, up to a maximum amount of CAD$0.5 million in any calendar year. Unless terminated earlier, this exclusive license agreement with UHN will expire upon the expiration of our royalty obligation for all licensed products. Either we or UHN may terminate the license agreement if the other party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time. UHN may terminate this agreement if we enter into bankruptcy or insolvency. We may terminate this agreement for any reason upon notice to UHN. License Agreement with Lund University Rights Holders In January 2017, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Prof. Stefan Karlsson and Dr. Maria Dahl, affiliates of Lund University, pursuant to which Prof. Karlsson and Dr. Dahl, and certain other relevant rights holders that may have an interest in intellectual property generated under a research project we are funding with Lund University, granted to us an exclusive worldwide license, subject to certain retained rights, under certain intellectual property rights to develop, commercialize and sell products in any and all uses relevant to Gaucher disease. Intellectual property licensed to us under this agreement relates to our Gaucher program. As consideration for the license, we are required to make payments in connection with the achievement of certain milestones up to an aggregate of $0.55 million. Our license agreement with the rights holders expires on the latest of (i) the twentieth anniversary of the end of a certain research project we are funding pursuant to an agreement with Lund University, (ii) the expiration of the term of any patent filed on the licensed rights that covers a licensed product, (iii) the expiration of any applicable marketing exclusivity right and (iv) such time that neither we nor any of our sublicensees or partners or contractors are commercializing a licensed product. Either we or the rights holders acting together may terminate the license agreement if the other such party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time, or if the other party enters into liquidation, becomes insolvent, or enters into composition or statutory reorganization proceedings. 20 License Agreement with BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. In August 2017, we entered into a license agreement with BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., or BioMarin, pursuant to which BioMarin granted us an exclusive worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights related to GILT tags owned or controlled by BioMarin to develop, commercialize and sell retroviridae-based gene therapy products for use in the treatment of Pompe disease. This agreement was amended in February 2018 and again in January 2020 to, among things, provide that BioMarin would supply us with certain materials related to the GILT tags technology. Under the terms of the agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize one or more licensed products in the United States and certain European countries. In addition, we are required to initiate an IND-enabling pharmacology/toxicology study of a licensed product within a specified period of time. As consideration for the license, we paid an initial license fee in the amount of $0.5 million and issued 233,765 shares of our Series B preferred stock to BioMarin at the time of our Series B financing. We are also obligated to make payments to BioMarin upon achievement of certain milestones up to an aggregate of $13.0 million and pay to BioMarin a low single digit royalty percentage on net sales of licensed products covered by patent rights in a relevant country. Our royalty obligation expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the latest to occur of the expiration or termination of the last valid claim under the licensed patent rights in such country, which is currently projected to occur in 2029, the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country and the expiration of any applicable regulatory exclusivity in such country. Unless terminated earlier, our license agreement with BioMarin will expire upon the expiration of our royalty obligation for all licensed products throughout the world. Either we or BioMarin may terminate the license agreement if the other party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time. BioMarin may also terminate the agreement in the event of any challenge or opposition to the licensed patent rights or related actions brought by us or our affiliates or sublicensees, or if we, our affiliates or sublicensees knowingly assist a third party in challenging or otherwise opposing the licensed patent rights, except as required under a court order or subpoena. In addition, BioMarin may terminate the agreement upon our bankruptcy or insolvency. We may terminate the agreement for any reason upon notice to BioMarin. License Agreement with Papillon Therapeutics, Inc. (previously GenStem Therapeutics, Inc.) In October 2017, we entered into a license agreement with GenStem Therapeutics, Inc., or GenStem, pursuant to which GenStem granted us an exclusive worldwide license, subject to certain retained rights, under certain intellectual property rights owned or controlled by GenStem related to our cystinosis program, including certain rights licensed to GenStem from the University of California, San Diego, to develop, commercialize and sell products for use in the treatment of cystinosis. Under the terms of the agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize one or more licensed products in the United States and in at least one country from other specified markets. We also agreed to comply with certain access requirements consistent with the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine regulations and to manufacture certain licensed products substantially in the United States. In October 2021, we received noticed that the license agreement with GenStem had been assigned to Papillon Therapeutics, Inc., or Papillon. As consideration for the license, we paid an initial license fee in the amount of $1.0 million and are required to make payments upon completion of certain development milestones up to an aggregate of $16.0 million. For example, i n November 2019 we made a $2.0 million payment in connection with the dosing of the first patient in the investigator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-04 in cystinosis in the United States. Additionally, we will pay to Papillon a tiered mid to high-single digit royalty percentage on annual net sales of licensed products as well as a low double-digit percentage of sublicense income received from certain third party sublicensees. Our royalty obligation expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis on the eleventh anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country or the expiration of the last valid claim under the licensed patent rights covering such licensed product in such country, which is currently projected to occur in 2038, whichever is later. Unless terminated earlier, our license agreement with Papillon will terminate upon the expiration of our royalty obligation for all licensed products throughout the world. Either we or Papillon may terminate the license agreement if the other party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time. In addition, we may terminate the agreement for any reason upon notice to Papillon. 21 Competition Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our potential competitors include larger pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Key competitive factors affecting the commercial success of our gene therapies are likely to be efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience, price and reimbursement. The market for treatment of lysosomal disorders is especially large and competitive. The gene therapies we are currently developing, if approved, will face competition. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a small number of our competitors. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we may be in obtaining FDA approval for drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ products may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any product we may commercialize and may render our gene therapies obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing any of our gene therapies. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Finally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our gene therapies non-competitive or obsolete. See “Risk Factors—Risks related to the discovery and development of our product candidates—We face significant competition in our industry and there can be no assurance that our product candidates, if approved, will achieve acceptance in the market over existing established therapies. In addition, our competitors may develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may adversely affect our ability to successfully market or commercialize any of our product candidates,” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information regarding competitors and competitive products. Government Regulation In the United States, biological products, including gene therapy products, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products. Each clinical study protocol for a gene therapy product must be reviewed by the FDA, and FDA approval must be obtained before the marketing of biological products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals. Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, regulates gene therapy products. The FDA and the NIH have published guidance documents with respect to the development and submission of gene therapy protocols. The FDA has published guidance documents related to, among other things, gene therapy products in general, their preclinical assessment, observing subjects involved in gene therapy studies for delayed adverse events, potency testing, and chemistry, manufacturing and control information in INDs for gene therapies. Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology. More restrictive regulations or claims that our products are unsafe or pose a hazard could prevent us from commercializing any products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. U.S. Biological Products Development Process The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: • completion of nonclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to good laboratory practices, or GLPs, and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations; 22 • submission to the FDA of an application for an IND, which must become effective before human clinical studies may begin; • approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, or ethics committee at each clinical study site before each study may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical studies according to the FDA’s regulations commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, and any additional requirements for the protection of human research subjects and their health information, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for its intended use; • submission to the FDA of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, for marketing approval that includes substantive evidence of safety, purity, and potency from results of nonclinical testing and clinical studies; • satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with cGMPs, to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity and, if applicable, the FDA’s current good tissue practices, or GTPs, for the use of human cellular and tissue products; • potential FDA audit of the nonclinical and clinical study sites that generated the data in support of the BLA; • payment of user fees for FDA review of the BLA (unless a fee waiver applies); and • FDA review and approval, or licensure, of the BLA. Before testing any biological product candidate, including a gene therapy product, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The clinical study sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to ship an unapproved, investigational product in interstate commerce and to administer it to humans, and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical study on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical study can begin. In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules are subject to oversight of institutional biosafety committees, or IBCs, as set forth in the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Under the NIH Guidelines, recombinant and synthetic nucleic acids are defined as: (i) molecules that are constructed by joining nucleic acid molecules and that can replicate in a living cell (i.e., recombinant nucleic acids); (ii) nucleic acid molecules that are chemically or by other means synthesized or amplified, including those that are chemically or otherwise modified but can base pair with naturally occurring nucleic acid molecules (i.e., synthetic nucleic acids); or (iii) molecules that result from the replication of those described in (i) or (ii). Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. The FDA also may impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical studies due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, studies may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical studies to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such studies. 23 Clinical studies involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the study sponsor’s control. Clinical studies are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical study will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical studies must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical study must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board, or IRB , at or servicing each institution at which the clinical study will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of study participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical studies are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical study until completed. Clinical research involving recombinant DNA that is subject to NIH guidelines also must be reviewed by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. Clinical studies typically are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: • Phase 1 . The biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients. • Phase 2 . The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule. • Phase 3 . Clinical studies are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. These clinical studies are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for approval and product labeling. Post-approval clinical studies, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. The FDA recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by ten years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire, of study subjects. During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical study investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical studies must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the NIH and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical studies may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor, acting on its own or based on a recommendation from the sponsor’s data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical study at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical study at its institution if the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Human gene therapy products are a new category of therapeutics. Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no assurance as to the length of the study period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the studies in order to establish the safety, efficacy, purity and potency of human gene therapy products, or that the data generated in these studies will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval. The NIH has a publicly accessible database, the Genetic Modification Clinical Research Information System which includes information on gene transfer studies and serves as an electronic tool to facilitate the reporting and analysis of adverse events on these studies. 24 Concurrent with clinical studies, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with c GMP requirements. To help r educe the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. U.S. Review and Approval Processes After the completion of clinical studies of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human studies, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. In most cases, the submission of a BLA is subject to a substantial application user fee, although the fee may be waived under certain circumstances. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an application with priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the BLA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a ‘‘filing’’ decision. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required. Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with GTPs. These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical studies were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP, GTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control. 25 Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA for a novel product (e.g., new active ingredient, new indication, etc.) must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological 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 grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical studies are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical studies. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical studies, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical studies, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. Orphan Drug Designation Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug or biological product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan product designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan product designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. Orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same biological product as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, benefits. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval and priority review, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. To be eligible for fast track designation, new drugs and biological products must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic 26 may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a Fast Track product at any time during the clinical development of the product. One benefit of fast track designation, for example, is that the FDA may consider for review sections of the marketing application for a product that has received Fast Track designation on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted. Under the breakthrough therapy program, products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may be eligible for the benefits of the Fast Track program when preliminary clinical evidence demonstrates that such product may have substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. Additionally, FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product receives timely advice and interactive communications to help the sponsor design and conduct a development program as efficiently as possible. Any product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Under priority review, the FDA’s goal is to review an application in six months, compared to ten months for a standard review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug or biological products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical studies establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination of publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period. Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapies Designation As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in December 2016, Congress amended the FD&C Act to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Regenerative medicine advanced therapies do not include those human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products regulated solely under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and 21 CFR Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and qualify for RMAT designation. A drug sponsor may request that the FDA designate a drug as a RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. The FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the drug meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a regenerative medicine therapy that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with the FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. Like the FDA’s other expedited development programs, RMAT designation does not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Post-Approval Requirements Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP. We will rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of any products that we may commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality 27 assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products, include reporting of c GMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. 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 a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, 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. We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical holds, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors or other stakeholders, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterate products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval. U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. In addition, a patent can only be extended once and only for a single product. The U.S. PTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our patents, if and as applicable, to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical studies and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA. A biological product can obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods, including some regulatory exclusivity periods tied to patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study. 28 The ACA , signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. This amendment to the PHS Act attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it 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. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA. A reference biological product is granted four and 12 year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until twelve years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor. Additional Regulation In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations. 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. Government Regulation outside of the United States In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical studies and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical study application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical studies. In the European Union, for example, a 29 Clinical Trial Application, or CTA, must be submitted for each clinical trial to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and an IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, the corresponding clinical study may proceed. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational product under European Union regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the European Union, with the exception of, among other things, region-specific document requirements. The European Union also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. For example, in the European Union, upon receiving marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Products receiving orphan designation in the European Union can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product for the same indication may be placed on the market. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the European Union for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the European Union are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the European Union, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if: • The second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; • The applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or • The applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. For other countries outside of the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical studies must be conducted in accordance with GCPs and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution. 30 Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements In addition to FDA restrictions on the marketing of pharmaceutical products, we may be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute the gene therapies for which we obtain approval. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include: • the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. A person or entity can be found guilty of violating the statute without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act, or FCA. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution; • federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the FCA, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment to, or approval by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay or transmit money to the federal government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery; • the anti-inducement law, which prohibits, among other things, the offering or giving of remuneration, which includes, without limitation, any transfer of items or services for free or for less than fair market value (with limited exceptions), to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary that the person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular supplier of items or services reimbursable by a federal or state governmental program; • the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or 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, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) 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; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation; 31 • HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, and their respective implementing regulations, which impose requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information; • the federal transparency requirements under the ACA, including the provision commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (currently defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members. • federal government price reporting laws, which require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs; and • federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers. Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any source, not just governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties. Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion or suspension from federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the U.S. government under the federal False Claims Act as well as under the false claims laws of several states. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including our arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom receive stock options as compensation for services provided, may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our gene therapies outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs, which may also adversely affect our business. 32 Regulators globally are also imposing greater monetary fines for privacy violations. For example, in 2016, the European Union adopted a new regulation governing data practices and privacy called the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. Non-compliance with the GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Notably, on January 21, 2019, Google was fined almost $57 million by French regulators for violating GDPR. European and UK Personal Data Collection The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union is governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, and as of May 25, 2018 the GDPR. The GDPR applies to any company established in the European Union as well as to those outside the European Union if they collect and use personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to individuals in the European Union or the monitoring of their behavior. The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for processors and controllers of personal data, including, for example, expanded disclosures about how personal information is to be used, limitations on retention of information, mandatory data breach notification requirements and onerous new obligations on services providers. Non-compliance with the GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. The GDPR and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of personal data, such as healthcare data or other sensitive information, could greatly increase our cost of providing our products and services or even prevent us from offering certain services in jurisdictions that we may operate in. In addition, further to the UK’s exit from the EU on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the “UK GDPR.” The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing. Healthcare Reform A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which, among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; introduced a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans; created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% (as of 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for manufacturers’ outpatient drugs coverage under Medicare Part D; subjects drug manufacturers to new annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal healthcare programs; created a new Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established the Center for Medicare Innovation at Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending. Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, President Biden issued an Executive Order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The Executive Order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administrations or other efforts, if any, to challenge repeal or replace the ACA, will impact our business. 33 In addition, other legislative and regulatory changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACE was enacted: • On August 2, 2011, the US Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the temporary suspension, a 1% payment reduction will occur beginning April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, and the 2% payment reduction will resume on July 1, 2022. • On January 2, 2013, the U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers. • On April 13, 2017, CMS published a final rule that gives states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. • On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA -approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act. • On May 23, 2019, CMS published a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. • On December 20, 2019, former President Trump signed into law the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865), which repealed the Cadillac tax, the health insurance provider tax, and the medical device excise tax. It is impossible to determine whether similar taxes could be instated in the future. Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. At the federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry; and directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by states under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates would have been be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. However, on December 29, 2021 CMS rescinded the Most Favored Nations rule. Additionally, on November 30, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of- 34 sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs . At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect that additional foreign, federal and state healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that foreign federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, if approved, or additional pricing pressures. Coverage and Reimbursement Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any gene therapies for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any gene therapies for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover our gene therapies could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. In addition, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. As a result, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will be a time-consuming process. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain and maintain coverage and reimbursement for any product, we may need to conduct expensive clinical trials in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of such product, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover the product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is: • a covered benefit under its health plan; • safe, effective and medically necessary; • appropriate for the specific patient; • cost-effective; and • neither experimental nor investigational. 35 Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures. Employees and Human Capital Resources As of December 31, 2021, we had 122 full-time employees, 30 of whom have Ph.D. or M.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 89 employees are engaged in research and development activities and 33 employees are engaged in finance, legal, human resources, facilities and general management. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, retaining, incentivizing and integrating existing and new employees, and identifying and recruiting prospective new employees. The principal purposes of our incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards and cash-based performance bonus awards. Available Information We are subject to the informational requirements of the Exchange Act and are required to file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You can read our SEC filings at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We also maintain a website at www.avrobio.com. You may access, free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. 36