Item 1. Business
Item 1. Business
Overview
We are a growing, oncology focused medical technology business bringing disruptive drug delivery technology with the goal of improving therapeutic delivery to liver and pancreatic tumors. Additionally, we are exploring the integration of our technology with our investigational immunotherapeutic, nelitolimod, a class C Toll-like receptor 9 agonist, for a range of liver and pancreatic indications. Our ultimate goal is to transform the treatment paradigm for patients battling liver and pancreatic tumors. We have developed an innovative organ-specific platform that is designed to overcome two of the most significant challenges that prevent optimal delivery and performance of therapeutics in these difficult-to-treat diseases: (i) high intratumoral pressure caused by tumor growth and collapsed vasculature restricting the delivery of oncology therapeutics and (ii) the immunosuppressive properties of liver and pancreatic tumor immune cells. By systematically addressing these barriers, we aim to improve response to therapies and to enable improved patient outcomes.
Background
Liver and pancreatic cancers are among the world’s most lethal diseases. Depending on the disease stage, many patients have no curative treatment options and have poor outcomes, with 5-year survival rates ranging from 8-20% for patients with advanced disease. While immunotherapy represents one of the greatest advancements in cancer treatment over the past 50 years, patients with primary or secondary tumors in the liver or pancreas are less likely to respond to treatment relative to most other cancer types that do not involve these sites of disease. These patients need new treatment options designed to address the unique challenges specific to liver and pancreatic tumors that limit the success of immunotherapy.
We have developed a platform approach to address the unique challenges of treating tumors in the liver and pancreas by integrating our innovative drug delivery technology with our investigational immunotherapeutic agent, nelitolimod, formerly known as SD-101, with the goal of overcoming the two primary barriers that inhibit treatment success: intratumoral pressure and immunosuppression, both of which limit therapeutic delivery and efficacy.
PEDD & TriNav- Device Business with Potential for Growth:
Our delivery method — Pressure-Enabled Drug Delivery (PEDD TM ) (“PEDD”) — modulates pressure and flow within blood vessels to improve intravascular therapeutic delivery into tumors and is designed to increase the likelihood of tumor response in comparison to conventional delivery technologies. Our on-market, 510(k) cleared PEDD device, the TriNav Infusion System (“TriNav”) is currently being used for a number of interventional radiology procedures, most commonly transarterial radioembolization (“TARE”) and transarterial chemoembolization (“TACE”) in patients with either primary liver cancer and in patients with liver metastases. TriNav is a highly innovative, novel technology, FDA-cleared drug delivery device that has undergone peer-reviewed studies at multiple clinical sites. The PEDD method has now been used in over 18,000 procedures, primarily TACE and TARE. TriNav achieved $18.5 million in revenue in 2023 with fourth quarter growth of 77% vs. the previous year.
We also have developed a separate 510(k) cleared PEDD device for infusions into the pancreas (Pancreatic Retrograde Venous Infusion (PRVI) device) to treat pancreatic tumors. TriSalus developed a novel way to access the pancreas via the venous vasculature where the vessels are larger, easier to access and PRVI is designed to address many of the limitations inherent to arterial infusions in the pancreas. The PRVI device is currently being studied in a clinical trial for nelitolimod delivery into pancreatic tumors. Although FDA-cleared, the PRVI device has not yet been commercialized and commercial sale is not anticipated before 2025.
We are currently studying the ability of nelitolimod, an investigational class C toll-like receptor 9 (“TLR9”) agonist, to reactivate the immune system within the liver and pancreas by broadly reprogramming immune cells and reducing myeloid derived suppressor cells (“MDSCs”), cells which cause immunosuppression, to enable more durable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (“CPIs”), thereby improving patient outcomes.
Nelitolimod has previously been shown in both clinical and non-clinical studies to broadly induce interferon production, dendritic cell activation, and B cell activation. Through pre-clinical experiments and early clinical experience in patients with liver and pancreatic tumors, we have demonstrated that nelitolimod reduces MDSCs, which are important mediators of immunosuppression in these tumor types, while recruiting T cells which are the target of CPIs.
We believe that the combination of PEDD with nelitolimod creates a platform approach with the potential to address common therapeutic barriers across numerous cancer indications affecting the liver and pancreas and that this approach
1
Table of Contents
could provide a meaningful benefit to patients. There is also the potential that this platform may not only enable CPIs, but other classes of immunotherapy as well, such as cell therapeutics.
Currently we are completing phase 1 clinical trials for four indications, in leading academic oncology centers across the United States (“U.S.”). In these trials, PEDD devices are used to administer our investigational immunotherapy candidate, nelitolimod, through a regional intravascular approach for patients with liver and pancreatic tumors. We believe this approach will maximize TLR9 stimulation within the liver and pancreas and eliminate immunosuppressive cells to broadly reprogram the tumor microenvironment (“TME”) with the goal of enabling improved efficacy of systemic immunotherapies like CPIs or cell therapy while maintaining a tolerable safety profile. We are currently evaluating data from these trials and determining which indication we intend to advance.
Overcoming Barriers to Effective Drug Delivery with PEDD
Systemic delivery of cancer therapeutics presents two critical challenges for patients with liver tumors. First, based on the normal distribution of cardiac output, the liver will receive only a small fraction of the dose. Second, intratumoral solid stresses compress the interior of the tumor and deform blood vessels, inhibiting therapeutic delivery into the tumor tissue. In particular, vessel leakiness together with vascular compression causes elevated interstitial fluid pressure that hinders delivery of therapeutic agents and limits efficacy. The end result of these factors creates barriers to the systemic administration of chemotherapeutic agents and nanomedicines to tumors, reducing treatment efficacy.
PEDD Delivery Technology is a technological solution to this intratumoral pressure barrier that can enable more effective delivery of therapeutic agents to liver and pancreatic tumors. PEDD devices are engineered to overcome high intratumoral pressure through creation of a favorable pressure gradient, causing increased blood flow to the tumor while constricting blood flow to normal tissue minimizing systemic exposure and decreasing toxicity.
The unique valve on the PEDD device, referred to as SmartValve, works in sync with the cardiac cycle and preserves more than 70% of forward blood flow with a pulsative response (vs. total occlusion) due to its intermittently occlusive design. This physiologically and traumatically increases local vascular pressure at the target location close to the tumor, infusing therapeutics into resistive tumor vessels to enable deeper perfusion and to improve therapeutic delivery. The SmartValve also provides a fixed centro-luminal catheter position, unlike a standard microcatheter where the position of the catheter is in a random, off-centered position. This more reproducible catheter positioning has been associated with a more homogeneous particle distribution in an in vivo hepatic arterial model. The SmartValve has also been shown to reduce or eliminate reflux and has been shown in clinical studies to reduce delivery of therapeutics to non-target tissues.
In independent clinical studies, the PEDD method of delivery has demonstrated the ability to overcome the infusion barriers of the TME and to improve therapeutic delivery. Additionally, in a recent large Health Economics and Outcome Research ("HEOR") study, (a 300 million patient dataset covering over 98% of US patients), capturing real-world safety and clinical outcomes for TriNav in its launch phase (2020-2022), demonstrated that TriNav patients, despite a higher baseline disease burden and clinical complexity, showed overall clinical results that were comparable to patients with a lower disease burden. The study also demonstrated that:
• In TACE procedures, interventional radiologists were able to deliver significantly more chemotherapeutic to the tumor when using TriNav vs. the amount delivered using standard catheters, a critical treatment goal.
• TriNav patients had fewer 30-day inpatient visits post-procedure vs. non-TriNav patients in matched cohort comparison.
• TriNav HCC patients were more likely to have a liver transplant in matched cohort comparison.
• TriNav TARE patients with liver metastases had fewer clinical complications post-procedure vs. non-TriNav patients in matched cohort comparison.
◦ TriNav TARE patients with liver metastases had lower rates of post-procedure fatigue vs. non-TriNav patients.
The results from this HEOR study suggests that TriNav is preferentially selected to treat patients with higher burden of disease than patients treated with standard catheters, yet these patients show comparable results post-treatment when compared to patients with lower disease burden. In matched cohort comparisons, TriNav patients showed meaningful trends towards better outcomes, including an increased rate of liver transplant. These results also demonstrate how real-world data complement traditional clinical trials to provide a more robust and timely understanding of the benefits realized by patients. TriSalus is committed to updating this data set continuously, and to continue reinforcing the benefit TriNav and the PEDD approach have been shown to provide to patients, providers, and payers.
Treatment of Liver Tumors with Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE)
2
Table of Contents
TARE is an image guided, locoregional therapy that involves hepatic artery embolization with intra-arterial infusion of Yttrium-90 (" 90 Y") microspheres for treatment of hepatocellular cancer as well as patients with certain metastatic liver cancers. The aim of the treatment is to target tumor cells with a high dose of radiation while limiting exposure to healthy tissue.
The PEDD approach is designed to provide a reliable method to maximize the tumor to normal liver ratio (“T/N ratio”). PEDD devices are designed to not only increase therapeutic delivery to target tumors but also to provide anti-reflux protection to minimize off-target delivery of radioactive micro spheres and the potential complications associated with undesired normal tissue exposure. A pilot study of a PEDD catheter not only demonstrated reduced hepatic nontarget embolization but also found a significant increase in tumor deposition of 99m Tc-MAA by a factor of 1.68 (range 1.33 to 1.90, p < 0.05). Another study at the Saint Luc University Hospital and King Albert II Cancer Institute in Brussels, Belgium confirmed the superiority of PEDD devices in improving tumor deposition in liver radioembolization with resin microspheres.
In patients undergoing TARE, augmenting the T/N ratio for the delivery of therapeutic micro spheres has the potential to increase therapeutic response as a direct positive relationship between absorbed dose and tumor response. In addition to the potential for improved response, an increased T/N ratio reduces radiation exposure to normal liver parenchyma and reduces the risk of associated liver toxicity.
Treatment of Liver Tumors with Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE)
TACE is an image-guided, locoregional therapy that involves hepatic artery embolization with intra-arterial infusion of a chemotherapeutic agent and is used most commonly for treatment of HCC and hepatic metastases of colorectal and neuroendocrine tumors in the U.S. As with TARE, the goal of TACE procedures is to deliver chemotherapeutic agents (in either an emulsion or as part of a drug-eluting bead system) with the goal of complete tumor coverage while avoiding delivery of therapeutic or embolic beads to normal tissue.
This goal of increasing tumor perfusion while reducing delivery to normal tissue may be achieved with the PEDD method using the 510(k) FDA-cleared TriNav device. TriNav alters downstream hepatic arterial blood pressure and may reduce resistance in tumor microvascular. In clinical studies, the use of PEDD devices for delivery of drug-coated micro spheres to treat HCC has demonstrated improved microsphere deposition, tumor necrosis, and imaging response compared to delivery with conventional end-hole catheters. PEDD devices have also been demonstrated, in multiple independent clinical studies, to increase delivery of chemotherapy beads, enhance response rates to chemotherapy beads, improve tumor targeting with Y-90 products, and enhance cell therapy delivery to liver tumors.
PEDD Clinical Studies
In multiple clinical studies comparing PEDD devices to standard catheters, PEDD devices demonstrated improved therapy delivery in both TARE and TACE studies. For instance, such studies have shown that:
• PEDD has improved tumor targeting in liver radioembolization with resin 90Y microspheres and significantly increased both T/N ratio and dose delivery compared to a standard endhole microcatheter in head-to-head comparisons between PEDD devices and standard catheters in the two studies summarized below:
◦ A prospective company sponsored study included 9 patients with a variety of tumor types who were referred for Y90 radioembolization treatment of their liver tumors. Prior to treatment via PEDD, each patient received two same-day sequential lobar infusions of macroaggregated albumin ("MAA") via endhole microcatheter and PEDD. Differences in MAA distribution within the tumors and non-target sites were evaluated and the results showed: a 33% to 90% (mean=68%; p<0.05) increase in tumor deposition; a 24% to 89% (mean=42%; p<0.05) decrease in nontarget embolization; and increased on-target deposition in 100% of the tumors.
◦ A retrospective independent study of 61 patients with liver cancer (190 lesions) treated with resin Y90 radioembolization. All patients in the study underwent an MAA planning procedure delivered via a standard endhole ("EH") catheter. Resin Y90 was then delivered via either an EH catheter (control group) or via PEDD, followed by PET/CT imaging. Each patient’s post-Y90 PET/CT was co-registered to their post- MAA SPECT/CT to compare the T/N ratio and tumor dose ("TD"). The results showed that across all tumor types, PEDD increased the T/N by a median of 24%, and the TD by a median of 23%, (p<0.001) with no significant difference seen in the standard EH catheter (control) group. The results showed that PEDD significantly improved both tumor targeting and dose delivery across multiple tumor types.
3
Table of Contents
• PEDD achieved greater on-target distribution of chemotherapy eluting beads, delivering a significantly higher concentration of therapy in the tumor as compared to standard microcatheters and delivered higher radiographic and pathologic response rates in a head-to-head comparison between the PEDD device and standard catheters in the study summarized below;
• A retrospective, single-center study, included 88 treatment-naive patients with solitary HCC tumors <6.5cm who underwent treatment using either PEDD (n = 18) or a standard microcatheter (n = 70). PEDD patients exhibited lower aspartate aminotransferase (p = 0.003) and alanine aminotransferase (p = 0.044) at 6 months. Blinded radiological evaluation showed that PEDD achieved a significantly higher objective response rate, compared to the EH catheter (100% vs 76.5%; p=0.019). Following liver explant, a blinded review of the liver specimens found that PEDD achieved improved pathological response compared to the standard EH catheter (88.8% vs 33.8%; p=0.026) as well as a significantly higher concentration of therapy in tumor compared to the standard EH catheter (88.7 ± 10.6% vs 55.3 ± 32.7 %; p=0.002)
Real-world Support
TriSalus recently published a HEOR study looking at real-world data capturing both safety and clinical complications for TriNav as compared to conventional catheters over the 2020-2022 time period. This study utilized a large, 300 million patient datasets covering 98% of US payers. These data, which compared key characteristics and clinical complication rates of 258 PEDD patients with those of 8,940 non-PEDD patients, provide valuable insights into the benefits of PEDD technology that would otherwise have taken many years to accumulate through alternative approaches, e.g., randomized controlled clinical trials.
Key findings include that TriNav patients, despite a higher baseline disease burden and clinical complexity as compared to non-TriNav patients, showed overall clinical results comparable to the patients with lower disease burden. The study also revealed that:
• TriNav patients were more likely to have received prior systemic therapy and were much more likely to have received prior embolization.
• In TACE procedures, interventional radiologists could deliver significantly more chemotherapeutic to the tumor when using TriNav vs. the amount delivered using standard catheters, a critical treatment goal for TACE procedures.
• In a matched cohort comparison, TriNav patients had fewer 30-day inpatient visits post-procedure than non-TriNav patients.
• TriNav HCC patients were more likely to have a post-procedure liver transplant in a matched cohort comparison.
• TriNav TARE patients with liver metastases had fewer clinical complications post-procedure vs. non-TriNav patients in a matched cohort comparison.
• TriNav TARE patients with liver metastases had lower rates of post-procedure fatigue vs. non-TriNav patients.
These study data demonstrate that TriNav is preferentially selected to treat the complex patient with a higher burden of disease vs. patients treated with standard catheters, yet these patients show similar results post-treatment compared to patients with a lower disease burden. TriNav patients showed meaningful trends toward better outcomes in matched cohort comparisons, including an increased rate of liver transplants. TriSalus is committed to updating this data set continuously and affirming the benefit TriNav and the PEDD approach bring to patients, providers, and payers.
TriNav Market Opportunity
The incidence of primary and metastatic liver tumors has been increasing, presenting a large opportunity for developing technologies and therapeutics given the poor outcomes associated with liver cancers, whether primary or metastatic. According to the American Cancer Society, primary liver tumors, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma ("ICC") and hepatocellular carcinoma ("HCC"), currently represent more than 41,000 cases annually in the U.S. The liver is also one of the most common sites for metastases, which is cancer that has spread from another site, and according to the National Cancer Institute and recent epidemiological data, there are at least 96,000 individuals diagnosed annually with liver metastases, primarily from colorectal cancer or non-small cell lung cancer, for a total of more than 137,000 new liver cancer diagnoses per year.
We estimate that 40% of these patients are eligible for TACE or TARE procedures and that between 25% and 30% are appropriate candidates for our current TriNav device, representing a potential market opportunity of approximately 37,000 units, or approximately $286 million, based on our current price of $7,750.
4
Table of Contents
When TriNav Large, a larger version of TriNav capable of being used in larger vessel size (3.0-5.0 mm), is commercially launched, we expect that our addressable market will increase by approximately 25%, resulting in an aggregate opportunity of 47,500 units or approximately $368 million, based on current TriNav pricing. Currently, TriNav is used primarily for either TACE or TARE, both of which entail localized therapeutic delivery to HCC or metastatic liver tumors using standard interventional radiology techniques. We are also exploring additional indications for use, including uterine fibroid embolization, which fall within the present 510(k) clearance. Potential market impact of additional indications will be determined after clinical data become available.
TriNav Positioning
Multiple clinical studies, both in TACE and in TARE, have demonstrated that the PEDD approach can increase therapeutic delivery to the tumor while decreasing delivery of radioembolics or chemoembolics to healthy tissue. Our recently published HEOR study clearly demonstrates that TriNav is used in patients with a high burden of disease, and in patients who are more advanced in their disease progression as evidenced by higher comorbidities, greater levels of liver-related adverse events prior to their embolization procedures, higher rates of previous embolization, and higher rates of previous systemic therapy.
Given that TriNav patients have achieved outcomes similar to patients with lesser burden of disease overall, and trends towards better outcomes (successful liver transplant) and lower rates of clinical complications, we believe that TriNav is positioned to become the standard of care for the complex patient who may benefit from liver embolization. We believe that a significant majority of embolization patients are "complex patients” defined by one or more of the following:
• Previous embolization and/or systemic therapy;
• Multi-nodal or bilobar lesions – (Significant tumor burden);
• Large tumors ( > 8 cm); and
• Multiple comorbidities.
Given this evidence base, we are positioning TriNav to become standard of care for complex patients and are instructing our sales organization to focus interventional radiologists’ utilization of TriNav on these complex patients where TriNav has been shown to provide benefit when compared to standard catheters.
Reimbursement
In December 2023 TriNav received a unique and permanent HCPCS code from CMS, C9797, which has been assigned to APC 5194 (Level 4 Endovascular Procedures) for calendar year 2024 with a payment rate of $16,724.70. This code can be used without restriction for any embolization or occlusion procedure consistent with the TriNav Instructions for Use and is reimbursed in the hospital outpatient and ambulatory surgery center settings. With the provision of this new code, reimbursement for TriNav has continued uninterrupted from the launch year. The new C9797 code brings significant benefit vs. previous CMS coverage as the new code is not restricted to use in conjunction with specific CPT codes, which was the case under TPT status.
In November 2019, TriNav, with its innovative SmartValve technology, received transitional pass-through ("TPT") status for U.S. reimbursement. Receiving TPT requires meeting stringent clinical and effectiveness criteria, and TriNav is one of the few technologies to receive this in the Interventional Oncology arena. The launch of TriNav in February 2020 coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which temporarily limited access to hospitals and impeded the technology’s adoption. Furthermore, it hindered our ability to gather essential data needed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for establishing a long-term reimbursement plan.
In late 2022, we collaborated with Congress to include a bi-partisan provision in the consolidated Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2023, P.L. 117-328, which extended the TPT reimbursement for an additional year. This extension provided us with the opportunity to collect the necessary data to work closely with CMS on developing a long-term reimbursement solution. Thanks to this additional year, we were able to conduct a HEOR study, a database of over 300 million patient lives, to gain insights into how TriNav with SmartValve is being used, the patient profiles, additional steps involved, and the procedures performed. This additional year of coverage provided the necessary data propelling CMS to provide the unique and permanent HCPCS code described above.
Our Customers & Stakeholders
We aim to interact closely with all our key stakeholders to ensure a patient’s experience is beneficial. We view our customers as including the interventional radiologists, IR technicians, medical oncologists, nursing support, and the value
5
Table of Contents
analysis committee staff, who either use our products or recommend the purchase of such products to hospitals and, most importantly, the patients they treat.
Our goal is to establish a high level of engagement and trust with the various clinicians and support individuals in the hospital as well as patients. Additionally, we believe that many hospitals are under cost pressure and need education on, and assistance to support and embrace, the use of modern technology. We have reimbursement, clinical and technical support to ensure each clinician and support individual feels confident in using our technology.
Another crucial stakeholder group comprises advocacy organizations that have been instrumental in supporting the use of TriNav and our company on a broader scale. TriSalus has partnered with several patient advocacy groups dedicated to assisting a diverse spectrum of liver cancer patients, encompassing both primary and secondary liver cancer. We aim to enhance awareness among patient communities regarding the array of available treatment options, including participation in our technology and nelitolimod clinical trials. Receiving a diagnosis such as liver or pancreatic cancer is devastating and overwhelming to patients. Our commitment is to provide patients, their clinicians and advocacy organizations with information regarding the benefits of our technology and platform approach with nelitolimod.
Sales and Marketing
We have established a commercial infrastructure designed to drive TriNav adoption among interventional radiologists and oncologists. Our commercial strategy for TriNav targets hospitals through direct sales engagements with clinicians and the broader medical, hospital and technical staff. TriSalus utilizes a direct sales model to hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers nationwide, eliminating the need to pay distributor fees and assuring that representatives are trained on TriNav's clinical benefit and use, and are not distracted by other sales priorities as would be the case if we utilized distributors. Our current sales focus is on targeting hospitals and major academic medical centers with the highest levels of TACE and TARE procedures.
Our sales representatives and sales managers have substantial medical device experience and market our products directly to interventional radiologists who perform TACE and TARE procedures. We are focused on developing strong relationships with our physicians and hospital customers in order to educate them on the use and benefits of our products. Similarly, our marketing team has a significant amount of domain expertise and a strong track record of success. Our sales and marketing team totals 41 professionals as of March 10, 2024.
The use of TriNav is consistent with the current steps an interventional radiologist utilizes to conduct TACE and TARE procedures. Following instructions from one of our sales representatives on how best to manage optimal functioning of the SmartValve, we believe the TriNav catheter is intuitive, and relatively easy to use. We believe this provides value to our customers and makes our sales model a source of competitive advantage. A lower service burden means we can develop a cost-efficient sales model by optimizing a mix of clinical specialists and salespeople. In the U.S., TriNav can be provided to hospitals on a consignment basis whereby title is transferred when the technology is used in clinical procedures. Other hospitals purchase TriNav directly, and TriNav is sold for a predetermined set fee for each catheter via a predetermined contract or purchase order.
TriNav Design & Specifications
TriNav is a flexible microcatheter that can be used to deliver diagnostic and therapeutic agents into peripheral vasculature beds, with its main clinical use being TACE or TARE procedures. It is equipped with a SmartValve, which is a one-way microvalve capable of generating infusion pressure greater than mean arterial pressure to help overcome intratumoral pressure and improve distribution of therapeutics. The SmartValve is designed to provide reflux protection and to maintain a centroluminal position during infusion.
The unique ability of TriNav in generating infusion pressure to drive therapy deeper into solid tumors is driven by the SmartValve at the distal end of the catheter. It is made of ultra-thin nitinol fibers laid out in a precise braid geometry, which is then overlaid with nanofilaments made of composite polymers — creating a filter valve that allows particles >10µm (for example, red blood cells) to pass through. The exact geometry of the braid and composition of the polymers have been calibrated to create a soft, pliable valve that can react dynamically to varying pressure and flow conditions in vasculatures, yet that is strong enough to prevent reflux of material and generate sufficient pressure without imposing too much radial force on the vessel walls. TriNav’s dimensional specifications are as follows:
Dimensional Specifications
Parameter Specification (nominal)
6
Table of Contents
Usable Length 120 cm, 150 cm
Outer Diameter (max) 0.038 in (0.97 mm)
Inner Diameter (Infusion Lumen) 0.021 in (0.53 mm)
Expandable Tip Outer Diameter 3.7 mm
The catheter shaft is made of composite polymer (Pebax) segments of varying softness and reinforced with stainless-steel braid. The design and material of the shaft have been optimized to provide strength, kink resistance, ease of tracking and flexibility — all of which are important to enable navigation of the catheter over microwires in tortuous vasculature. At the distal end of the catheter, there are two radiopaque marker bands to help physicians locate the distal end of the catheter as it is being threaded through the vasculature. The inner lumen of the catheter shaft is lined with polytetrafluoroethylene, a highly inert and lubricious polymer, to minimize friction and maximize compatibility with microwires, chemotherapy, cell therapy products, and other agents used during the procedure. Finally, the device is coated with a hydrophilic formulation that is thin yet durable, making it even more trackable and capable of accessing the most tortuous vasculature.
Industry and Competition
Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change as research provides a deeper understanding of the pathology of diseases and new technologies and treatments are developed. We believe our scientific knowledge, technology, and development capabilities provide us with substantial competitive advantages, but we face potential competition from multiple sources, including large pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty pharmaceutical and, to a lesser degree, medical device companies.
TriNav Competition
The primary competition for TriNav is the standard microcatheter, which is frequently used in minimally invasive procedures for delivering therapeutics or devices. However, standard microcatheters do not have the ability to modulate pressure and flow nor do they have clinical evidence or data that they can improve therapeutic delivery to liver and pancreatic tumors.
Microcatheters are manufactured by a wide range of medical device manufacturers. Besides the standard microcatheter, there are two other competitive products: Embolix’s Sniper and Guerbet’s SeQure.
Some of our competitors are large, well-capitalized companies with significantly larger market shares and resources than we have. As a consequence, they are able to spend more money on product development, marketing, sales, and other products. We also compete with smaller, niche players that have less resources and more limited influence in the market.
Growth Opportunities - TriNav Portfolio Expansion
The next product that we plan to commercialize is a larger version of TriNav capable of being used in larger vessel sizes, 4.0-6.0 mm, which was 510(k) cleared by the FDA in May 2023. We intend to launch the product commercially once our ongoing market evaluation is completed, which is expected to occur in the second half of 2024. We believe that by offering additional devices to address a broader range of vessel sizes encountered in TACE and TARE procedures, there is a potential that TriNav and our next-generation of PEDD products could be positioned to be utilized
7
Table of Contents
across the wide range of procedural approaches, disease stages, and patient vasculatures that interventional radiologists encounter. The SmartValve component, which is embedded into the catheter, is highly dynamic in that is opens and close in sync with the heartbeat to achieve the following:
• Enhances perfusion of the tumor by modulation of the vessel pressure gradient;
• Improves target delivery by redirecting blood flow to the tumor and away from the normal liver;
• Creates turbulence to mix therapeutic with the blood for reliable distribution; and
• Reduces reflux to protect normal tissue outside the liver.
TriSalus is committed to enhancing our technology to improve patient outcomes. A major area of product enhancement underway at the Company is to incorporate machine learning and sensing into our technology to improve patient outcomes through several mechanisms:
• Precision Therapeutic Delivery – By accurately measuring both pressure and flow within blood vessels feeding tumors, healthcare providers can overcome mechanical barriers in the tumor microenvironment with greater precision. This data can inform more precise and consistent treatment delivery, dosage of chemotherapy, radiation therapy or targeted therapies and ensure optimal tumor perfusion.
• Real-time monitoring – Continuous monitoring of pressure and flow allows for real-time assessment of optimal therapy delivery. This enables clinicians' ability to adjust treatment strategies promptly based on dynamic changes in the tumor’s vascular characteristics, optimizing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing potential side effects.
• Selection of optimal target vessel location – Changes in pressure and flow patterns can negatively alter therapeutic delivery efficiency before clinically apparent. Early detection through sensing monitoring enables proactive intervention, allowing for improved therapeutic delivery.
• Personalized Therapy Optimization – Every tumor and vascular network is unique. By monitoring pressure and flow parameters over time, interventional radiologists can tailor treatment to the patient’s specific vascular dynamics. This personalized approach enhances treatment efficacy while minimizing unnecessary interventions and risks.
• Reduced treatment toxicity – Fine-tuning treatment regimens based on real-time pressure and flow data can help minimize treatment toxicity by delivering therapeutic agents more precisely to the tumor while sparing healthy tissues. This has the potential to lead to improved patient tolerance of treatment and overall improved tumor response.
• Enhanced research opportunities – The data collected from pressure and flow sensors can contribute to better understanding of mechanical TME barriers and treatment response. This data can lead to “smart algorithms” to optimize treatment protocols and develop improved overall patient outcomes.
TriSalus is committed to enhancing our technology, incorporating machine learning and sensing technologies with a range of capabilities to provide valuable clinical insights, improving personalized treatment strategies, and most importantly, improve patient outcomes. R & D efforts are underway on a variety of different technologies with plans for future product launches within the next several years.
Pancreatic Retrograde Venous Infusion Device (PRVI)
Additionally, we are advancing our Pancreatic Infusion Technology ("PRVI"), which is currently 510(k) cleared by the FDA and in a Phase 1 clinical trial for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.
Our PRVI approach seeks to address many of the key challenges associated with delivering therapeutics to pancreas tumors. In contrast to the liver, pancreas arteries feeding tumors are small and tortuous, making targeted delivery challenging. venous access affords anatomic advantages due to the presence of larger diameter vessels. Additionally, pancreatic tumors exhibit a dense, desmoplastic stroma that limits the delivery of therapeutics. The PEDD method is design to address the mechanical barriers. Certain cell types within the stroma construct an immunologically suppressed microenvironment that prevents the local immune system from clearing the tumor. We believe our PRVI device may address these challenges by:
• Modulating pressure and flow to overcome mechanical barriers;
• Embedding real-time pressure sensing capability important to ensure a pressure flow that stays within safe and appropriate pressure levels and that avoids hypoxia; and
8
Table of Contents
• Enabling a therapeutic index that is efficacious while limiting toxicity compared to systemic dosing.
The Pancreatic Retrograde Venous Infusion Device has not been commercialized and commercial sales are anticipated to coincide with approval, if any, of nelitolimod in locally advanced Pancreatic cancer.
Pre-clinical pancreatic cancer model experiments indicated that using the PRVI method of PEDD improved drug delivery 3.6-7.0-fold. We studied PRVI in an orthotopic murine model of PDAC and demonstrated that PRVI delivery of gemcitabine increased intra-tumoral drug concentrations and enhanced the subsequent tumor responses to treatment. PRVI infusion of gemcitabine resulted in more than 100-fold greater tumor concentrations compared with systemic delivery (127 vs 19 ng/mg; P < .01) and lesser tumor volume compared with both systemic gemcitabine and saline via PRVI (274 vs 857 vs 629 mm3; P < .01). The same mouse model was employed to assess the impact of PRVI on tumor uptake and response to oxaliplatin. It was found that PRVI administration of a 2mg dose of oxaliplatin resulted in a significant decrease in tumor size while preserving nerve conduction velocity and nerve tissue morphology as compared to standard delivery methods under histopathological analysis.
Near-Term Commercial Focus
Our near-term pipeline focus is to improve outcomes with TARE and TACE for patients, while concurrently investigating how nelitolimod may allow more patients with liver tumors to benefit from immunotherapy.
Current evidence for the efficacy of specific locoregional therapies is primarily based on retrospective reports and a large population-based study, as there are few prospective clinical trials. Given this landscape, along with our PERIO clinical program, we are supporting multiple investigator-initiated trials comparing PEDD with standard catheters for TACE and TARE procedures with respect to therapeutic delivery.
Other Commercialization Growth Opportunities
• Expand TriNav Sales Organization in the U.S. : We sell TriNav through our direct sales organization in the U.S. Our sales team has in-depth knowledge of the markets in which we compete and in which we seek to compete. We have recently expanded our specialized sales organization across the U.S. to provide broader hospital coverage and increased time for the representative to expand utilization within hospital targets from which we expect to foster deep relationships with physicians and drive revenue growth. We intend to expand our commercial organization over the next several years to ensure full coverage of the Embolization market in a manner that will maximize shareholder value.
• Expand Internationally Through Distributors : In addition to growing our direct sales organization in the U.S., we are considering the option of selling to distributors in Europe, where we believe that selling through third-party distributors is the best way to optimize our opportunities and resources. In addition, certain Asian markets have a very high incidence of both hepatocellular carcinoma ("HCC") and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma ("ICC"), and TACE procedures are the standard of care for many patient types. We currently have a distribution relationship with Hangzhou Ruizhen Therapeutics Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou”) in China. In collaboration with Hangzhou, TriNav has been submitted for National Medical Products Administration (“NMPA”) approval and we expect a final determination regarding such approval sometime in the first half of 2024. If approved, Hangzhou is expected to have the responsibility to launch in the Chinese market with support from us.
• Develop Collaborations with Therapeutic Partners . The PEDD approach has been shown to be able to improve uptake into tumor tissue of a range of therapeutics in both human studies and in animal models. Immunotherapeutics, chemo- and radioembolics, chemotherapeutics and cell therapies have all been shown to have improved uptake when delivered by a TriNav vs. standard approaches. We may explore opportunities to partner with therapeutics companies at all stages of development and commercialization by reading the delivery of therapies to patients in a manner that can improve outcomes in areas of high unmet medical need.
• Continue Partnering with Leading Academic Medical Centers. We will continue to progress our clinical evidence of the value of PEDD through TriSalus-sponsored and investigator-sponsored research. Currently we have multiple investigator-initiated trials at major medical centers exploring the benefit of TriNav and the PEDD method in TARE, TACE and uterine fibroid embolization. We intend to complete these trials while also planning and initiating additional trials that have the potential to further define the benefit that TriNav can bring to areas of unmet medical need.
Nelitolimod: Promising Therapeutic Opportunity
Strategic Acquisition of Nelitolimod
9
Table of Contents
In July 2020, we acquired nelitolimod, a class C Toll-like Receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist, from Dynavax Technologies Corporation (“Dynavax”). Prior to acquiring nelitolimod, we embarked on a comprehensive landscape assessment evaluating assets currently or formerly in clinical development that would fit the criteria for optimal immunomodulation of the TME in the liver and pancreas. Our selection criteria included the identification of an immunotherapeutic with a potential mechanism of action to specifically address immunosuppressive mechanisms in the liver and/or pancreas; the potential to enable systemic checkpoint inhibition in patients with liver or pancreatic tumors to the extent observed in other indications, the ability to broadly reprogram the TME while addressing Myeloid Derived Suppressor Cells, (a key cell type that suppresses the immune system in the liver and pancreas) and a therapeutic where locoregional delivery would be expected to improve outcomes.
We chose to focus on TLR agonists since they are well known to have broad TME modulating effects with induction of immunity at distal sites and the potential to turn “cold tumors” such as those affecting the liver and pancreas, “hot”, meaning responsive to immunotherapeutics such as ICIs. Many TLR agonists have been in clinical development with varying results, most often using needle injection strategies which limit the ability to treat multiple or large tumors. TLR agonists are generally not safe to be administered intravenously due to concerns related to excessive immune cell activation.
We acquired nelitolimod from Dynavax based on Phase 2 study data that demonstrated improved responsiveness to pembrolizumab with acceptable tolerability in stage IV cutaneous melanoma. In particular, Dynavax conducted the Synergy-001/KEYNOTE 184 Phase 1b/2 study (the “Synergy study”) to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of intratumoral nelitolimod and intravenous (“IV”) pembrolizumab for cutaneous melanoma and head and neck cancer. In the Synergy study, nelitolimod + pembrolizumab was associated with a serious adverse event rate on par with that of pembrolizumab alone, and a response rate of 78% was achieved in treatment naïve patients. In the melanoma and head and neck carcinoma studies, nelitolimod in combination with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (“PD-1”) therapy produced response rates that are higher than those reported for anti-PD 1 therapy alone. See (12) Dynavax Purchase to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report for more information.
Since acquiring the worldwide rights to nelitolimod, we have initiated three Phase 1/1b Pressure Enabled Regional Immuno-oncology (PERIO TM ) (“PERIO”) studies which are focused on four indications where we are testing the ability of the nelitolimod /PEDD therapeutic platform to enable systemic CPIs in the following Phase 1 clinical trials:
• Uveal melanoma with liver metastases (PERIO-01, NCT04935229);
• ICC and HCC (PERIO-02, NCT05220722); and
• Locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma (PERIO-03, NCT05607953).
We are collaborating with leading cancer centers across the country to help leverage our deep immuno-oncology expertise and our unique, proprietary platform to improve patient responses to CPI therapy and potentially allow a greater number of cancer patients to benefit from immunotherapy advances.
We believe our approach in combination with CPI therapy has the potential to extend and improve the lives of patients battling liver and pancreatic tumors.
Current Treatment and Limitations
Two critical barriers have historically hindered immunotherapy success in patients with intrahepatic and pancreatic malignancies: (1) delivery of immunotherapy agents into high-pressure liver tumors is inefficient with conventional approaches and (2) specific immunosuppression pathways hinder immunotherapy responsiveness. In the majority of liver and pancreatic cancers, the tumors are not infiltrated by T cells and the TME overall is suppressed. An accumulation of suppressive immune cells, such as MDSCs, further limit the ability of T cells to enter into tumors and remain in an activated state.
For immunostimulatory drugs like nelitolimod to enable CPIs and other forms of immunotherapy, successful delivery into tumors is necessary. Intratumoral pressure in the TME may result in subtherapeutic drug concentrations at the site of disease. With systemic intravenous (IV) infusion, it is difficult to achieve therapeutic levels within the tumor due to distribution of cardiac output and high intratumoral pressures, and off-target toxicity is common. Local needle injection, the traditional approach for TLR agonists since they typically cannot be administered systemically, is highly localized at the point of insertion, not uniformly distributed throughout the tissue (particularly in patients with large or multiple tumors), and physically impractical for most tumors, including liver and pancreas. Importantly, regional intravascular delivery with standard microcatheters does not address the intra-tumoral pressure barrier, while balloon catheters cause a cessation of forward blood flow, which may eliminate the ability to augment baseline intravascular pressure.
10
Table of Contents
Nelitolimod mechanism of action .
As a class C TLR9 agonist, nelitolimod has the capacity to stimulate a broad array of immune cells and induce numerous cytokines. In addition, nelitolimod may be able to reduce myeloid suppressor cells in the liver and pancreas.
Nelitolimod: Cancer Types in Clinical Studies
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (“LA-PDAC”)
LA-PDAC is associated with rapid progression, resistance to conventional therapies, deterioration in quality of life, significant morbidity, and a high mortality rate. PDAC tumors are characterized by dense desmoplastic stroma with limited effector immune cells, rendering both drug delivery and stimulation of immune responses very challenging. Immuno-oncology approaches in general and CPI therapy have been highly successful in certain other malignancies, but PDAC is a particularly aggressive disease which has proven resistant to immuno-oncology regimens. Poor responses to CPI therapy in PDAC patients may be due to the presence of suppressive immune mediators such as MSDCs, scarcity of effector T cells, and drug delivery challenges due to a highly desmoplastic stroma creating high tumor pressures. Response rates to CPI in patients with PDAC are routinely below 10% and new therapeutic options capable of addressing the delivery and immunologic barriers are urgently needed. LA-PDAC immunotherapy success may be limited due to challenges with drug delivery and a deeply immunosuppressive TME driven by MDSC. The PERIO programs are designed to test delivery technology and class C TLR9 agonist with the potential to enhance immunotherapy performance in intrapancreatic indications.
Uveal Melanoma Liver Metastases
With fewer than 3,000 new diagnoses per year in the U.S., uveal melanoma is a rare solid organ malignancy in which metastatic spread to the liver results in rapidly progressive and often fatal disease. Uveal melanoma arises from melanocytes within the uveal tract, but it is a unique disease with distinct genetic, chromosomal, and biologic features not observed in cutaneous melanoma. Metastatic disease occurs in more than 50% of patients and involves the liver in up to 90% of metastatic patients.
The recent regulatory approval of Kimmtrak®, a bispecific T-cell receptor engager, which had a 1-year OS rate of 73% offers promise for patients with stage IV uveal melanoma and demonstrates that immunotherapy has potential application in addressing this disease. However, approximately 50% of patients are ineligible due to human leukocyte antigen (“HLA”) type. While the OS data was positive, progression-free survival at one year was only approximately 19%, with a median progression-free survival of 3.3 months. Despite representing a crucial clinical advance, the unmet need in the stage IV uveal melanoma space persists.
For patients not eligible for Kimmtrak, CPIs that target CTLA-4, such as ipilimumab, and those that target PD-1, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab are often used off-label. However, they have had limited efficacy in metastatic uveal melanoma. An important contributor to the failure of current therapies to effectively treat uveal melanoma is the profoundly immunosuppressive intrahepatic environment.
HCC and ICC
HCC and ICC are the most common primary liver tumors, with HCC representing approximately 90% of cases. While the underlying reasons for the biologic aggressiveness of HCC and ICC are not fully understood, the profoundly immunosuppressive intrahepatic environment is likely an important contributor to both disease progression and failure of current therapies. Given limited success of single agent CPI therapy for HCC and ICC, these drugs have been used in this patient population, but with less success than other diseases.
Current standard of care in first-line ICC is the combination of gemcitabine/cisplatin (“gem/cis”) in combination with AstraZeneca’s Imfinzi® (durvalumab or “durva”). Median overall survival in these patients is about 12.7 months. Some second line patients are eligible for targeted therapies which can provide hope for these patients, but the majority of 2 nd line patients are not eligible for these targeted therapies. For these patients there are few options, generally receiving FOLFOX/FOLFIRI chemotherapy with median overall survival of around 6 months. Addressing unmet need in either second line or in first line patients is an attractive market opportunity.
Our Platform Solution: Addressing the Limitations of Current Approaches in Cancer Immunotherapy
Our proprietary platform approach seeks to address immune dysfunction in liver and pancreatic tumors by combining our drug delivery technology with standard care therapies and immunotherapeutics. In a number of clinical studies, PEDD has shown the ability to overcome intra-tumoral pressure and enable delivery of therapeutics intravascularly into liver tumors relative to conventional regional delivery.
11
Table of Contents
Platform Components
PEDD Devices : PEDD Delivery Technology is a technological solution to this intratumoral pressure barrier that can enable more effective delivery of therapeutic agents to liver and pancreatic tumors. PEDD devices are engineered to overcome high intratumoral pressure through creation of a favorable pressure gradient, causing increased blood flow to the tumor while constricting blood flow to normal tissue minimizing systemic exposure and decreasing toxicity.
TriNav is currently being used to deliver nelitolimod to tumors in the liver in our Phase 1 PERIO-01 and PERIO-02 trials. A second FDA-cleared device, our PRVI is designed for therapeutic delivery into pancreatic tumors and is currently being used to deliver nelitolimod to the pancreas in the Phase 1 PERIO-03 trial.
Nelitolimod: In July 2020, we acquired nelitolimod, a class C Toll-like Receptor 9 agonist (TLR9 agonist) from Dynavax and are investigating nelitolimod as a therapeutic candidate delivered by PEDD to reactivate the immune system within the liver and pancreas with the goal of enabling deeper, more durable responses to other immunotherapeutics (e.g., CPIs) in liver and pancreatic cancers for which limited therapeutic options currently exist. Broad immune suppression driven by MDSCs leads to failure of systemic immunotherapeutics in liver and pancreas tumors. Our phase 1 clinical and pre-clinical data support the concept that nelitolimod primes immune cells to promote anti-tumor T-cell function, induces interferon pathways, reduces MDSCs and broadly activates the local tumor immune system to reverse immunosuppression in the liver and pancreas.
Market Opportunity for TriNav Delivery Technology and Investigational Therapeutic Nelitolimod
Nelitolimod Market Opportunity
According to the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and our most up-to-date epidemiology, there are approximately 137,000 new cases of primary and secondary liver cancers diagnosed annually in the U.S. alone, and more than 60,000 cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed each year. Of these, more than 80,000 may be addressable through our nelitolimod /PEDD platform for liver and pancreas. Additionally, there is a high global incidence in key targeted indications, such as HCC and ICC, providing an additional opportunity outside the U.S. The incidence of pancreatic cancer in the U.S. is more than 64,000 annually with more than 90% of these being pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (“PDAC”).
PDAC and liver cancers are areas of very high unmet medical need and represent large market opportunities. We are currently evaluating data from our Phase 1 clinical studies and determining which indication(s) we will progress into further clinical studies. A chosen indication would be one in which we believe there is evidence supportive of commercial success, and such progression would require us to raise additional capital.
Nelitolimod Potential Indications: Pancreatic Cancer
PDAC is a prevalent, highly lethal cancer, with a five-year survival rate of 13% across all stages. Systemic first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic carcinoma currently provide short-term disease control. Both locally advanced and metastatic PDAC face similar challenges with respect to drug delivery and deep immunosuppression.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends consideration of clinical trials as the preferred option in the first-line setting for metastatic PDAC, emphasizing the broad recognition that current therapies are failing. First-line therapy for advanced or recurrent disease patients is FOLFIRINOX, a chemotherapy regimen, often delivered in concert with radiotherapy. A hallmark of PDAC TME is the abundance of noncancer cell components, collectively designated as the stroma, including MDSCs. This stroma can account for up to 90% of the tumor mass. The stroma has been shown to inhibit both spontaneous and therapeutically inducted antitumor immunity making it difficult to treat.
Higher CPI response rates in mismatch repair (“MMR”) deficient PDAC patients suggest promise for CPI in combination with immune reprogramming agents, although fewer than 5% of PDAC patients are MMR deficient. The success of immunotherapy in PDAC may hinge on successful management of two critical barriers: (1) PDAC tumors are densely desmoplastic, with the stroma and high tumor pressures posing a major barrier to drug delivery and (2) PDAC tumors foster deep immunosuppression, which is driven in part by MDSCs.
We are initially focusing on locally advanced PDAC due to the potential of the PRVI device to deliver nelitolimod into pancreatic tumors with the PRVI approach. Drug delivery to pancreatic tumors is more challenging than to the liver, given the more complicated arterial anatomy for the pancreas. We believe that the potential to administer an immunomodulatory drug, such as nelitolimod, into pancreatic tumors with PEDD creates a highly differentiated clinical approach.
Nelitolimod Potential Indications: Liver Cancers
12
Table of Contents
Nelitolimod is currently being studied in three liver cancer indications: ICC, HCC, and UMML. In liver cancer our focus is currently on ICC and UMML.
ICC
ICC is a relatively rare and aggressive form of primary bile duct cancer which carries a poor prognosis since it is typically diagnosed when the disease is already in advanced stages. Despite growing awareness and education of the disease, outcomes have not improved substantially in the last decade, with a 5-year survival rate of 3-23% depending on stage of diagnosis.
For patients with advanced or metastatic disease, systemic chemotherapy with gemcitabine + cisplatin (“gem/cis”) has been the standard-of-care. Recently, the FDA approved the PD-L1 inhibitor, durvalumab, in combination with gem/cis, for the treatment of first-line patients with advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancers, including ICC. In this trial of first-line patients, median OS for durvalumab + gem/cis was 12.8 months, as compared to 11.5 months for gem/cis alone. The FDA has approved targeted fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2”) and isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (“IDH1”) inhibitors for second line and third line treatment in CCA, but less than 15% of the patients are eligible. The results from CPI in microsatellite instability-high CCA (<10% of CCA patients) may suggest the potential for immunotherapy to work if the TME in microsatellite instability-stable patients can be reprogrammed effectively. Since ICC is typically a desmoplastic tumor with a “cold” TME, direct tumor administration of nelitolimod via PEDD has the potential to enhance patient outcomes. We currently expect to seek a second-line and beyond indication for ICC for which the current standard of care is systemic chemotherapy for those not eligible for targeted therapy. Although there is significant clinical development underway with targeted therapies, there is little clinical development ongoing focused on the majority of patients who are not targeted therapy eligible.
UMML
Uveal melanoma is a malignant tumor derived from melanocytes. Despite similarities between cutaneous and uveal melanoma with respect to cell of origin, the genetic, molecular, and clinical features are entirely distinct. In particular, uveal melanoma has a unique metastatic pattern, with the liver being the dominant site of spread. Uveal melanoma is more aggressive and resistant to current therapies than cutaneous melanoma. Up to 50% of patients develop metastatic disease, with 90% of stage IV patients developing liver metastases. The highly suppressive immune environment in the liver may prevent immunotherapies such as CPIs from achieving success in this patient population.
Currently, there are limited treatments for uveal melanoma. Immunocore’s Kimmtrak® is indicated for the treatment of HLA-A*02:01 positive adults with unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma. Although an improvement over previous therapeutic options, it is only available to approximately 50% of uveal melanoma patients due to its HLA restriction and with median overall survival of 21.7 months and 1-year overall survival of 73% in first line patients. Approximately 50% of the population who are HLA-A*02:01 negative still have not approved treatment option with limited late-stage clinical trials ongoing (Ideaya’s, darovasertib, is being studied in combination with crizotinib, is currently in a trial that is potentially registrational). In these patients, dual agent CPI treatment is commonly used with median overall survival of approximately 19 months demonstrated in a small Phase 2 trial. Hepzato TM from Delcath was also recently approved and is available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program. Use of Hepzato TM requires placement of three catheters (two in the groin and one in the neck) to deliver a chemotherapeutic.
We are seeking to create a TME more amenable to checkpoint inhibition, which we believe may potentially be achievable due to direct delivery of nelitolimod to the liver with PEDD, the dual mechanism effect of broad intratumoral immune stimulation coupled with elimination of MDSCs, and the absence of HLA restrictions.
Significant Potential Upside from Nelitolimod Program in Development :
We are investigating nelitolimod as a therapeutic candidate to re-activate the immune system within the liver and pancreas and to enable deeper and more durable responses to systematic immunotherapeutics (e.g., checkpoint inhibitors). We are initially evaluating nelitolimod for the treatment of uveal melanoma with liver metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We believe delivering nelitolimod through our proprietary FDA cleared device using our PEDD technology creates a potential opportunity to change the paradigm of how liver and pancreatic cancer are treated. Our current pipeline represents a major market opportunity, particularly for PDAC and ICC given the high unmet need in these indications.
Safety and feasibility data for 5 PDAC patients who received nelitolimod via PRVI was reported at the Society for Interventional Radiology 2024 Annual Meeting and indicated no serious treatment-related complications. Previous study data released in November 2023 for 3 patients demonstrated immune signals in these patients consistent with what we
13
Table of Contents
reported for liver metastasis patients. We anticipate reporting the full phase 1 experience in the second half of 2024 and begin phase 1b enrollment in the second half of 2024 if the data remains supportive.
Phase 1 data for the PERIO-01 program was presented at a late-breaking oral session at the Society of Immunotherapy for Cancer meeting in November 2023. The data presented included safety data on 56 patients, of whom 65% had failed prior therapy. Grade 3 or greater adverse event rate was 11%. The disease control rate (“DCR”) was 58% across all dose levels, and at the presumed optimal biologic dose (2mg, N=7), there was a DCR of 81%, median progression free survival of 11.7 months and 1-year overall survival rate of 86%. Amongst patients with available data ctDNA clearance was 59%, with 86% showing reduction in ctDNA.
We continue to follow ICC patients and expect to report initial data in mid-2024.
Growth Strategies
Our goal is to target the significant unmet medical needs of patients with pancreatic and liver cancers by improving how liver cancer is treated currently, utilizing the TriNav Infusion System to deliver chemoembolization and radioembolization more effectively while working to transforming immunotherapy treatment through using our PEDD method to administer our investigational class C TLR9 agonist, nelitolimod.
• Complete Development and Obtain Approval of Nelitolimod: Currently, our uveal melanoma, ICC, and pancreas cancer clinical programs are studying the delivery of nelitolimod deep into the vasculature of the liver or pancreatic tumors using our proprietary, FDA-cleared TriNav devices. Analysis of data expected in the second half of 2024 will be used to support decisions regarding the initiation and timing of next-phase trials. Related data milestones are dependent on multiple factors, including prioritization of available capital, interactions with regulatory authorities, enrollment rates, and external events which may impact operations at clinical sites.
• Seek Potential Expedited Development Pathway or Accelerated Approval Regulatory Pathway : Our targeting of orphan indications and rare disease creates an opportunity to expedite development and the potential for an accelerated path to approval and commercialization. Nelitolimod is being studied for the treatment of ICC, uveal melanoma and HCC, diseases for which potential therapies have previously received orphan drug designations. However, nelitolimod does not currently have orphan designation, nor have we discussed possible use of the accelerated approval pathway for any indication with the FDA or other comparable regulatory agencies and it is possible that we may never be granted orphan designation or pursue accelerated approval.
For approval of new medicines, the regulatory standard for proving “substantial evidence of efficacy” has often historically required the execution of two randomized, well-controlled clinical trials. In orphan and ultra-orphan indications with unmet medical need, including many cancer indications, there is significant precedent for FDA approval based on a single pivotal clinical trial. Further, in FDA’s draft guidance on Clinical Trial Considerations to Support Accelerated Approval of Oncology Therapeutics issued in March 2023, FDA discusses the opportunities, and provides guidance for sponsors on using a single clinical trial to potentially support an accelerated approval and to verify clinical benefit. Certain drugs in development that have received orphan drug designation have been approved via the accelerated approval regulatory pathway. It is also possible, however, that in the context of either orphan or non-orphan drug development, the FDA may require more than one clinical study and/or may not accept certain clinical data.
• Conducting Clinical Trials with Checkpoint Inhibitors: The global current immunotherapy market represents the highest growth therapeutic sector in the pharmaceutical industry. This growth has been led, and we anticipate that this growth will continue to be led, by the continuing growth of CPIs, innovative new classes and an expanding patient pool. While immunotherapy targeting CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 in many cancer types has been introduced, response rates remain low in uveal melanoma, HCC, ICC and pancreatic cancer leaving significant unmet need in these patient groups. PD-(L)1 therapy has been transformational for a number of cancer types but outcomes with respect to the liver and pancreas have lagged in comparison. Despite this performance, PD-(L)1 companies have significant clinical programs studying various novel combinations of their PD-(L)1 inhibitors with both on-market and investigational drugs, including investigational immmunotherapeutics in hepatobiliary cancers. An increasing number of developmental programs are incorporating regional delivery approaches, where PEDD may add additional value.
We intend to use investigator’s choice of anti-PD-1 in the development of nelitolimod in the described indications. If partnership with or rights of reference from a CPI manufacturer(s) becomes prudent or required, we believe that any such collaboration has the potential to provide any such partner companies with significant growth opportunities and differentiation from competitors.
14
Table of Contents
Clinical Development Program for Nelitolimod
The following table sets forth information pertaining to the clinical trials for nelitolimod. We are currently advancing PERIO-03 while we evaluate data from the PERIO-01 and PERIO-02 trials. Initiation and timing of next-phase programs and data milestones are subject to change and dependent on multiple factors including interactions with regulatory authorities, enrollment rates, and external events which may impact operations at clinical sites.
Our anticipated upcoming milestones (which are subject to change based on enrollment, competitive environment, and regulatory feedback) include:
• Release of PERIO-01 Phase 1 overall survival and progression free survival data, with optimal biologic dose confirmation, in Q2 2024;
• PERIO-03 Phase 1 (monotherapy) enrollment completion and data release in Q4 2024 with initiation of Phase 1b (+ CPI); and
• PERIO-02 data release and initiation of next-phase enrollment in 2H 2024.
Clinical Progress to Date Using Our Therapeutic Platform
PEDD with nelitolimod: As of March 10, 2024, across three clinical trials, more than 400 infusions of nelitolimod have been delivered at multiple dose levels as monotherapy and in combination with CPIs in more than 100 patients.
Clinical Sites and Partnerships
MD Anderson Cancer Center
We have been engaged with top academic sites and leading clinicians in the liver and pancreas cancer spaces. All three PERIO programs are centered on a 5-year Alliance Program with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (“MDACC”) which we entered into in March 2021 (the “MDACC Agreement”). Pursuant to the MDACC Agreement, investigators at MDACC agreed to serve as the lead clinicians for the PERIO-01, PERIO-02, and PERIO-03 studies and we agreed to pay $10.0 million in collaboration funding to MDACC to conduct preclinical and clinical studies as mutually agreed by the parties. To date, we have paid an aggregate of $6.0 million towards these studies and will pay an additional $2.0 million following on each of the fourth and fifth anniversaries of the MDACC Agreement. The term of the agreement is for the later of (i) five years or (ii) until the applicable studies are completed. Prior to the expiration of the term of the MDACC Agreement, either party may terminate the MDACC Agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement and fails to cure such breach within 30 days of receiving notice of such breach.
We have the right to terminate a study (and the corresponding study order) upon 30 days prior notice to MDACC, provided that the joint steering committee (which is composed of three representatives of each party and oversees the collaboration) has approved such termination and that all reasonable study costs and fees associated with wind-down activities and final monitoring visit shall be paid by us. Termination of one or more study orders will not automatically result in the termination of the MDACC Agreement or termination of any other study orders.
15
Table of Contents
Under the terms of the MDACC Agreement, each party retains all right, title and interest in and to its own background intellectual property and no license to use such background intellectual property is granted to the other party except for MDACC’s use of the study drug and study devices, as applicable, in a study as set forth in the MDACC Agreement. Within fifteen days after our receipt of an invention disclosure covering any invention, representatives from each party shall meet to assess whether, taking into consideration the intellectual property limits outlined in the MDACC Agreement, the applicable invention in which MDACC has an ownership interest can be assigned to us in full and exclusive ownership. If such assignment would not violate the intellectual property limits agreed to, MDACC assigns to us the sole and exclusive ownership in and to the applicable invention and we shall reimburse MDACC for reasonable patent costs, if any, incurred by MDACC prior to the date of assignment. No intellectual property has been developed or transferred to date.
Other Clinic Sites
Other active clinical sites for the PERIO programs include: University of Colorado Anschutz Medical School, Columbia University, Massachusetts General Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Stanford University, University of California — Los Angeles, University of Miami and University of Washington Medical Center. We also entered into an agreement with Lifespan to open the TriSalus Translational Immunotherapy Lab, which is part of a comprehensive, integrated, academic health system with The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.
Nelitolimod Competition
We expect nelitolimod to compete primarily with a number of therapeutics that are now, or will soon be, approved for use in uveal melanoma with liver metastases, cholangiocarcinoma HCC, ICC, and locally advanced PDAC. These therapeutics include a range of immunotherapeutics (e.g., tebentafusp for HLA-A*02:01 positive metastatic uveal melanoma patients, atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab for HCC patients), chemotherapeutics (e.g., gemcitabine combined with cisplatin for cholangiocarcinoma) and a limited number of targeted therapies (e.g., sorafenib or lenvatinib for HCC).
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC)
Current preferred therapy for PDAC is either a clinical trial or chemotherapy (commonly the FOLFIRINOX regimen, + subsequent chemoradiation). Although there are a number of therapeutics and early stage clinical trials, there are currently no ongoing and active industry sponsored Phase 3 drug trials according to Clinicaltrials.gov.
Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)
Most patients at initial presentation of ICC are poor candidates for surgical resection and, in those that undergo surgical resection, recurrence rates are high. Chemotherapy is the primary treatment approach, although the recent approval of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin for first-line ICC is likely to lead to this regimen becoming the standard of care. FGFs and IDH1 inhibitors have been approved by the FDA, but fewer than 15% of ICC patients are eligible to receive such treatment based on mutation presence. Initially, we will seek approval in previously treated patients.
Uveal Melanoma
Uveal melanoma has only one FDA-approved therapy, tebentafusp (KIMMTRAK). Tebentafusp is a bispecific fusion protein that recognizes two targets, with one target present on melanoma cells, and the second target present on T cells. As with all T-cell receptor products, only patients with specific HLA types are eligible for treatment. As a result, only approximately 50% of stage IV uveal melanoma patients are eligible to receive tebentafusp, and a significant unmet need still remains. Ideaya’s darovasertib, in combination with crizotinib, is currently being studied in HLA:A*02:01 negative patients in a potentially registrational trial. We believe that nelitolimod delivered with PEDD to the site of disease with its believed dual mechanism effect of broad intratumoral immune stimulation coupled with elimination of MDSCs, combined with systemic checkpoint inhibition, has the potential to outperform current treatment options. Nelitolimod, if approved, would address the entire stage IV uveal melanoma patient population, with no limitations based on HLA typing.
Dynavax Asset Purchase Agreement
On July 31, 2020, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Dynavax pursuant to which we purchased from Dynavax (i) nelitolimod intellectual property and product know-how, together with any and all goodwill, rights to royalties, profits, compensation, license fees and all rights to obtain renewals, reissues and extensions of registrations, (ii) all permits related to nelitolimod, (iii) all regulatory documentation related to nelitolimod, (iv) the nelitolimod investigational new drug and (v) all clinical trial data associated with nelitolimod (the “Dynavax Agreement”).
16
Table of Contents
Pursuant to the Dynavax Agreement, we made an upfront payment to Dynavax of $5 million, and on December 30, 2020, made an additional payment of $4 million to reimburse Dynavax for clinical trial expenses incurred. Dynavax may also receive certain development milestone consideration dependent on the results of (a) certain clinical studies, (b) the dosing of patients in clinical trials, (c) what phase of clinical trial nelitolimod reaches, and (d) regulatory approval. The development milestones are valued up to $170 million. Dynavax may also receive certain commercial milestone payments based on (a) first commercial sale and (b) net sales in a fiscal year. Such commercial milestone payments are valued up to $80 million. As of December 31, 2023, we have made three milestone payments of $1 million each, totaling $3 million.
We also are obligated to pay Dynavax certain royalty payments equal to 10% of aggregate net sales of products containing the nelitolimod compound acquired during each fiscal year up to and including $1 billion and 12% for the portion of aggregate net sales during a fiscal year greater than $1 billion, subject to certain adjustments. Our royalty payment obligations shall expire on the latest to occur of: (i) expiration of the last-to-expire claim of an issued and unexpired patent relating to nelitolimod that claims such product (or compound contained therein) or the manufacture or use thereof in the applicable country of sale, or (ii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country.
Manufacturing and Distribution
Manufacturing
We manufacture TriNav at our facility in Westminster, Colorado, and have adequate capacity to meet anticipated commercial and clinical demands throughout the next several years. We are continually strengthening our supply chain and are currently qualifying additional third-party suppliers for select components of TriNav. These alternate third-party suppliers of TriNav components are subject to qualification and approval from the FDA.
We contract with third parties for the manufacture, testing, and storage of nelitolimod. In our experience, contract manufacturers (“CMOs”) are generally cost-efficient and reliable, and therefore, we currently have no plans to build our own manufacturing capabilities for nelitolimod. Because we rely on CMOs, we employ personnel with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical, and quality experience to oversee contract manufacturing and testing activities and to compile manufacturing and quality information for our regulatory submissions. Manufacturing is subject to extensive regulations that impose various procedural and documentation requirements, and which govern record-keeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control, and quality assurance, among other activities. Our systems and our contractors are required to comply with these regulations, and we assess this compliance regularly through monitoring of performance and a formal audit program.
Distribution
Effective January 1, 2023, we became exclusive distributor in the U.S. for TriNav, which we now distribute directly to our customers.
In May 2019, we entered into a Distribution and Collaboration Agreement with Hangzhou (the “Hangzhou Agreement”) pursuant to which Hangzhou was granted an exclusive, non-transferable and non-sublicensable right to distribute PEDD devices and to develop and commercialize PEDD combination products, if any, in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau (the “Territory”).
We will collaborate with Hangzhou in the development, manufacture and commercialization of PEDD combination therapies. We must provide Hangzhou with sufficient quantities of PEDD devices to conduct clinical trials to obtain regulatory approval for each PEDD combination therapy in the Territory and use commercially reasonable best efforts to meet all supply needs to support the commercialization plan (if implemented). Hangzhou is responsible for (i) developing a commercialization plan, (ii) the cost of development activities to obtain regulatory approval for each PEDD combination therapy in the Territory, (iii) securing all rights to each of its drug candidates as necessary to execute the applicable plan and grant the corresponding U.S. option to TriSalus, and (iv) developing, commercializing and obtaining regulatory approvals for each PEDD combination therapy for the applicable indication in the Territory. To date, no clinical trials have commenced nor do we believe such commencement is imminent.
In connection with entering into the Hangzhou Agreement, we issued a convertible promissory note (which has been subsequently fully converted to TriSalus common stock) to an affiliate of Hangzhou for gross proceeds of $10 million. No other amounts have been paid or received under the Hangzhou Agreement to date. In collaboration with Hangzhou, we submitted TriNav for NMPA approval and we expect a final determination in the first half of 2024. The Hangzhou Agreement also requires Hangzhou to deliver to us a marketing plan no less than 12 months prior to the first distribution of any PEDD device. Such marketing plan has not been delivered to us as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and accordingly no PEDD devices have been sold pursuant to this Hangzhou Agreement or are expected to be sold in the immediate future.
17
Table of Contents
The Hangzhou Agreement further includes an obligation for Hangzhou to pay us a milestone payment in the amount of $2.5 million for each PEDD combination therapy that receives regulatory approval in the covered jurisdictions and low-single digit royalties for any subsequent sales of such PEDD combination therapy on a country-by-country basis for the later of (i) ten years after the first commercial sale of such therapy in such country or (b) the first commercial sale of a generic version of such therapy by a third party. No submission for regulatory approval has been made as of the date of this Annual Report and none is expected to be made in the immediate future.
Importantly, under the terms of the Hangzhou Agreement, we will own all intellectual property that is discovered or generated in the course of performance of the collaboration that relates primarily and directly to any PEDD device, including any method of making or using any of the foregoing. Hangzhou shall own all intellectual property generated in the course of performance of the collaboration that relates primarily and directly to a Hangzhou drug candidate, including the composition, salt, polymorph, formulation of or any method of making or using the foregoing; except that TriSalus has the option to obtain an exclusive, non-transferable license under the Hangzhou intellectual property to develop, manufacture and commercialize Hangzhou drug candidates as PEDD combination therapies in the United States. The exercise of such option, or lack thereof, will result in further payment obligations of ours, if exercised, ranging from $0 to $10.0 million dependent on the timing of the exercise, and of Hangzhou in the amount of up to $10.0 million if unexercised. In the event of a material breach, the Hangzhou Agreement can be terminated by the non-breaching party effective upon (i) 90 days written notice of the breach if uncured, (ii) 30 days written notice if the alleged breach related to failure to make payments under the Hangzhou Agreement and is uncured, or (iii) immediately if such notice pertains to the willful and intentional breach related to compliance with anti-corruption laws, confidentiality obligations, distribution of competing PEDD devices, or violation of material intellectual property rights of the non-breaching party.
Intellectual Property
We strive to protect our proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patents intended to cover our product candidates and technologies that are important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection, as well as know-how, trademarks, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. We internally developed our intellectual property related to TriNav and related technologies. We have sought and intend to continue to seek appropriate patent protection for our product candidates, as well as other proprietary technologies and their uses by filing patent applications in the U.S. and other select countries.
Patents
As of March 10, 2024, we owned at least 122 registered patents expiring between 2041 and 2043, with at least an additional 61 pending patent applications and four provisional applications.
For our TriNav device, we are the sole owner of five granted U.S. patents, seven pending U.S. patent applications, one granted patent in Japan and four pending foreign patent applications in Canada, China, Europe, and Hong Kong relating to a dynamic reconfigurable microvalve protection device and the PEDD method for infusing an immunotherapy agent to a solid tumor and method for selective pressure-controlled therapeutic delivery. The five granted U.S. patents expire between 2031 and 2038. The one granted patent in Japan expires in 2038. Any patents issuing from the pending patent applications (or in the case of priority applications, if issued from future non-provisional applications that we file) are expected to expire between 2030 and 2041, without accounting for potential terminal disclaimers or potentially available patent term adjustments or extensions.
For the TriSalus Infusion System, we are the sole owner of five granted U.S. patents, seven pending U.S. patent applications, 12 granted foreign patents (counting national validations in Europe) and four pending foreign patent applications in China, Europe, Hong Kong, and India relating to closed tip dynamic microvalve protection device, atraumatic occlusive system with compartment for measurement of vascular pressure change, method for selective pressure-controlled therapeutic delivery and the PRVI method for pressure-controlled retrograde venous therapeutic delivery. The five granted U.S. patents expire between 2035 to 2038. The 12 granted foreign patents expire between 2035 and 2040. Any patents issuing from the pending patent applications (or in the case of priority applications, if issued from future non-provisional applications that we file) are expected to expire between 2035 and 2041, without accounting for potential terminal disclaimers or potentially available patent term adjustments or extensions. Some patents and applications relating to the TriSalus Infusion System overlap with those identified for the TriNav device.
For nelitolimod, we are the sole owner of five granted U.S. patents, three pending U.S. patent application, three pending U.S. provisional patent applications, two pending PCT patent applications, 16 pending foreign patent applications, and 61 granted foreign patents in Australia, Canada, China, Europe (counting national validations), Hong Kong, Japan,
18
Table of Contents
South Korea, New Zealand and Singapore relating to immunostimulatory sequence oligonucleotides and methods of using the oligonucleotides and specifically nelitolimod. All of the granted US and foreign patents that relate to composition of matter for nelitolimod expired in December 2023. Currently, we do not solely own any granted US or foreign patents relating to nelitolimod that expired past December 2023. However, we jointly own with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC one granted US, seven granted foreign patents, and two pending foreign applications that relate to nelitolimod, which is a CPG-C type oligonucleotide, as discussed further below. We also jointly own a pending U.S. patent application with the Regents of the University of California and H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc.
Any patents issuing from the pending patent applications (if issued from future national phase applications that we file) are expected to expire between 2041 and 2043, without accounting for potential terminal disclaimers or potentially available patent term adjustments or extensions.
We also jointly own with third parties one granted U.S. patent, two pending U.S. patent applications, and seven granted foreign patents in China, Europe (counting national validations), Hong Kong and Japan and tending foreign applications relating to combinations with CPG-C type oligonucleotides for treating cancer. The one granted U.S. patent and seven granted foreign patents in China, Europe (counting national validations), Hong Kong and Japan all expire in 2036. Any patents issuing from the two (2) pending U.S. patent applications and the two (2) pending foreign patent applications (or in the case of priority applications, if issued from future non-provisional applications that we file) are expected to expire between 2036 and 2039, without accounting for potential terminal disclaimers or potentially available patent term adjustments or extensions.
Upon regulatory approval of nelitolimod in the U.S., we expect to be granted five years of regulatory exclusivity in the U.S. We also intend to apply for orphan drug designation which, if granted, would extend the exclusivity period for an additional two years.
Nelitolimod is currently undergoing clinical trials using pressure enabled drug delivery of nelitolimod using TriNav and the TriSalus Infusion System in various cancers, and in combination with systemic checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Some of the patents and applications described with respect to TriNav and the TriSalus Infusion System are expected to be relevant to the manner nelitolimod is administered in clinical development, and post-marketing if nelitolimod is approved by regulatory authorities to be used in combination with TriNav and the TriSalus Infusion System.
Trade Secrets and Other Proprietary Information
We seek to protect our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and proprietary know-how, by requiring our employees, consultants and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of their employment or engagement. These agreements generally provide that all confidential information developed or made known during the course of the relationship with us be kept confidential and not be disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of our employees, the agreements also typically provide that all inventions resulting from work performed for us, utilizing our property or relating to our business and conceived or completed during employment shall be our exclusive property to the extent permitted by law. Where appropriate, agreements we obtain with our consultants also typically contain similar assignment of invention provisions. Further, we generally require confidentiality agreements from business partners and other third parties that receive our confidential information.
Trademarks
We also rely on 16 registered trademarks and trade designs to develop and maintain our competitive position. TriNav, SmartValve, and TRISALUS LIFE SCIENCES are registered trademarks of ours in the U.S, and we have pending applications for U.S. trademarks for TRISALUS, SMARTSENSE, TRIGUIDE, TRISALUS CLINICAL ESSENTIALS.
Government Regulation
We are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”) and the FDA’s implementing regulations set forth, among other things, requirements for the testing, development, including clinical trials, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, approval/clearance, labeling, storage, record-keeping, reporting, distribution, import, export, sale, advertising and promotion of our products and product candidates. Although the discussion below focuses on regulation in the U.S. because that is currently our primary focus, we may seek approval/clearance for, and market, our products in other countries in the future. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the U.S., although there can be important differences.
We expect the global regulatory environment will continue to evolve, which could impact the cost, the time needed to approve, and ultimately, our ability to maintain existing approvals or obtain future approvals for our products. Regulations
19
Table of Contents
of the FDA and other regulatory agencies in and outside the U.S. impose extensive compliance and monitoring obligations on our business. These agencies review our design and manufacturing practices, labeling, record keeping, and manufacturers’ required reports of adverse experiences and other information to identify potential problems with marketed products. We are also subject to periodic inspections for compliance with applicable manufacturing and quality system regulations, which govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the design, manufacture, packaging, and servicing of finished drugs and medical devices intended for human use. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory bodies, both within and outside the U.S. (including the Federal Trade Commission, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice, and various state attorneys general), monitor the promotion and advertising of our products. Any adverse regulatory action, depending on its magnitude, may limit our ability to effectively market and sell our products, limit our ability to obtain future pre-market approvals or result in a substantial modification to our business practices and operations.
Medical Device Development and Approval
Unless an exemption applies, each medical device commercially distributed in the U.S. requires either FDA clearance of a 510(k) premarket notification submission, granting of a de novo request, or premarket application (“PMA”) approval. Under the FD&C Act, medical devices are classified into one of three classes, Class I, Class II, or Class III, depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of manufacturer and regulatory control needed to ensure its safety and effectiveness. Class I includes devices with the lowest risk to the patient and includes those devices for which safety and effectiveness can be assured by adherence to the FDA’s general controls for medical devices, which include compliance with the applicable portions of the Quality System Regulation (“QSR”), facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse medical events, and truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising, and promotional materials. Some Class I devices may require premarket notification to the FDA.
Class II devices are moderate risk devices and are subject to the FDA’s general controls, and special controls as deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device. These special controls can include performance standards, post-market surveillance, patient registries, and FDA guidance documents. While most Class I devices are exempt from the 510(k) premarket notification requirement, manufacturers of most Class II devices are required to submit to the FDA a premarket notification under Section 510(k) of the FD&C Act requesting permission to commercially distribute the device. The FDA’s permission to commercially distribute a device subject to a 510(k) premarket notification is generally known as 510(k) clearance. Under the 510(k) process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent” to either a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976, the date upon which the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 were enacted, or another commercially available device that was cleared to through the 510(k) or de novo process.
Devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risks, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or some implantable devices, or devices that have a new intended use, or use advanced technology that is not substantially equivalent to that of a legally marketed device, are placed in Class III, requiring approval of a PMA. For a device that is Class III by default (because it is a novel device that was not previously classified and has no predicate), the device manufacturer may request that FDA reclassify the device into Class II or Class I via a de novo request.
510(k) Marketing Clearance . To obtain 510(k) clearance by the FDA, a premarket notification submission must be submitted to the FDA demonstrating that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device. A predicate device is a legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval, i.e., a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976, and for which a PMA is not required, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or I (e.g., via the de novo classification process), or a device that was previously cleared through the 510(k) process. The FDA’s 510(k) review process usually takes from three to six months, but may take longer. The FDA may require additional information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, it will grant 510(k) clearance to market the device.
After a device receives 510(k) marketing clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change or modification in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) marketing clearance or, depending on the modification, a de novo request or PMA approval. The FDA requires each manufacturer to determine whether the proposed change requires submission of a 510(k), de novo or a PMA in the first instance, but the FDA can review that decision and disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or request the recall of the modified device until FDA has cleared or approved a 510(k), de novo or PMA for the change. Also, in these circumstances, the manufacturer may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.
20
Table of Contents
De Novo Process . If a previously unclassified new medical device does not qualify for the 510(k) pre-market notification process because no predicate device to which it is substantially equivalent can be identified, the device is automatically classified into Class III. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a new route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification procedure. This procedure allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls that are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. The FDA may reject the reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or determines that the device is not low to moderate risk or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed. If the FDA agrees with the down-classification, the de novo applicant will then receive authorization to market the device, and a classification regulation will be established for the device type. The device can then be used as a predicate device for future 510(k) submissions by the manufacturer or a competitor.
Premarket Approval Process . Class III devices require submission through the PMA process before they can be marketed. The PMA process is more demanding than the 510(k) premarket notification process. In a PMA, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the device is safe and effective, and the PMA must be supported by extensive data, including data from preclinical studies and human clinical trials. The PMA must also contain, among other things, a full description of the device and its components, a full description of the methods, facilities and controls used for manufacturing, and proposed labeling. Following receipt of a PMA submission, the FDA determines whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If the FDA accepts the application for review, it has 180 days under the FD&C Act to complete its review of a PMA, although in practice, the FDA’s review often takes significantly longer and can take up to several years. An advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA may be convened to review and evaluate the application and provide recommendations to the FDA as to the approvability of the device. The FDA may or may not accept the panel’s recommendation. In addition, the FDA will generally conduct a preapproval inspection of the applicant or its third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the QSR.
The FDA will approve the new device for commercial distribution if it determines that the data and information in the PMA application constitute valid scientific evidence and that there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its intended use(s). The FDA may approve a PMA application with post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution, and collection of long-term follow-up data from patients in the clinical study that supported PMA approval or requirements to conduct additional clinical studies post-approval. The FDA may condition PMA approval on some form of post-market surveillance when deemed necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and efficacy data for the device in a larger population or for a longer period of use. In such cases, the manufacturer might be required to follow certain patient groups for a number of years and to make periodic reports to FDA on the clinical status of those patients. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval can result in material adverse enforcement action, including withdrawal of the approval.
Certain changes to an approved device, such as changes in manufacturing facilities, methods, or quality control procedures, or changes in the design performance specifications, which affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, require submission of a PMA supplement. PMA supplements often require submission of the same type of information as a PMA, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the original PMA and may not require as extensive clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel. Certain other changes to an approved device require the submission of a new PMA, such as when the design change causes a different intended use, mode of operation, and technical basis of operation, or when the design change is so significant that a new generation of the device will be developed, and the data that were submitted with the original PMA are not applicable for the change in demonstrating a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Clinical Trials . Clinical trials are almost always required to support de novo or a PMA and are sometimes required to support a 510(k) submission. All clinical investigations of investigational devices to determine safety and effectiveness must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”) regulations which govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion of the investigational device, and specify an array of recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. If the device presents a “significant risk” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the FDA requires the device sponsor to submit an IDE application to the FDA, which must become effective prior to commencing human clinical trials. A significant risk device is one that presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of a patient and either is implanted, used in supporting or
21
Table of Contents
sustaining human life, substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating or treating disease or otherwise preventing impairment of human health, or otherwise presents a potential for serious risk to a subject. An IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory test results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA notifies the manufacturer that the investigation may not begin or is subject to a clinical hold. If the FDA determines that there are deficiencies or other concerns with an IDE for which it requires modification, the FDA may permit a clinical trial to proceed under a conditional approval.
In addition, clinical studies must be approved by, and conducted under the oversight of, an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) for each clinical site. The IRB is responsible for the initial and continuing review of the IDE and may pose additional requirements for the conduct of the trial. If an IDE application is approved by the FDA and one or more IRBs, human clinical trials may begin at a specific number of investigational sites with a specific number of patients, as approved by the FDA. If the device presents a non-significant risk to the patient, a sponsor may begin the clinical trial after obtaining approval for the trial by one or more IRBs without separate approval from the FDA, but must still follow abbreviated IDE requirements, such as monitoring the investigation, ensuring that the investigators obtain informed consent, and labeling and record-keeping requirements. An IDE supplement must be submitted to, and approved by, the FDA before a sponsor or investigator may make a change to the investigational plan.
During a clinical trial, the sponsor is required to comply with the applicable FDA requirements, including, for example, trial monitoring, selecting clinical investigators and providing them with the investigational plan, ensuring IRB review, adverse event reporting, record keeping, and prohibitions on the promotion of investigational devices or on making safety or effectiveness claims for them. The clinical investigators in the clinical study are also subject to FDA regulations and must obtain patient informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of the investigational device, and comply with all reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Additionally, after a trial begins, we, the FDA, or the IRB could suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to study subjects outweigh the anticipated benefits.
Drug Development and Approval
Under the FD&C Act, FDA approval of an NDA is required before any new drug can be marketed in the U.S. NDAs require extensive studies and submission of a large amount of data by the applicant.
Preclinical Testing. Before testing any compound in human patients in the U.S., a company must generate extensive preclinical data. Preclinical testing generally includes laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as toxicological and pharmacological studies in several animal species to assess the toxicity and dosing of the product. Certain animal studies must be performed in compliance with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) regulations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act. Some nonclinical testing can happen during the clinical trials.
IND Application. Human clinical trials in the U.S. cannot commence until an investigational new drug (“IND”) application is submitted and becomes effective. A company must submit preclinical testing results to the FDA as part of the IND, and the FDA must evaluate whether there is an adequate basis for testing the drug in initial clinical studies in human volunteers. Unless the FDA raises concerns, the IND becomes effective 30 days following its receipt by the FDA, and the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Either before or after human clinical trials commence, the FDA may stop a clinical trial by placing it on “clinical hold” because of concerns about the safety of the product being tested or for other reasons.
Clinical Trials. Clinical trials involve the administration of a drug to healthy human volunteers or to patients, under the supervision of a qualified investigator. The conduct of clinical trials is subject to extensive regulations, including compliance with the FDA’s Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) requirements, which establish standards for conducting, recording data from, and reporting the results of, clinical trials, and are intended to assure that the data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, safety, and well-being of study participants are protected. The conduct of clinical trials is subject to the FDA’s Bioresearch Monitoring (“BIMO”) program, a comprehensive program of on-site inspections, data audits, and remote regulatory assessments. Clinical trials must be conducted under protocols that detail the study objectives, parameters for monitoring safety, and the efficacy criteria, if any, to be evaluated. Each protocol is reviewed by the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by, and conducted under the auspices of, an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) for each clinical site. Companies sponsoring the clinical trials, investigators, and IRBs also must comply with, as applicable, regulations and guidelines for obtaining informed consent from the study patients, following the protocol and investigational plan, adequately monitoring the clinical trial, and timely reporting of adverse events (“AEs”). Foreign studies conducted under an IND must meet the same or comparable requirements as those that apply to studies being conducted in the U.S. Data from a foreign study not
22
Table of Contents
conducted under an IND may be submitted in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP and U.S. regulations and the FDA is able to validate the data.
A study sponsor is required to publicly post specified details about certain clinical trials and clinical trial results on government or independent websites (e.g., http://clinicaltrials.gov). Human clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, although the phases may overlap, be combined, or be subdivided. In some cases, particularly in the development of therapies to treat orphan or rare disease or diseases with unmet medical need, development is limited to one or two phases.
• Phase 1 clinical trials involve the initial administration of the investigational drug to humans, typically to a small group of healthy human subjects, but occasionally to a group of patients with the targeted disease or disorder. Phase 1 clinical trials generally are intended to evaluate the safety, metabolism and pharmacologic actions of the drug, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness.
• Phase 2 clinical trials generally are controlled studies that involve a relatively small sample of the intended patient population, and are designed to develop initial data regarding the product’s effectiveness, to determine dose response and the optimal dose range, and to gather additional information relating to safety and potential AEs.
• Phase 3 clinical trials are conducted after preliminary evidence of effectiveness has been obtained and are intended to gather the additional information about safety and effectiveness necessary to evaluate the drug’s overall risk-benefit profile and to provide a basis for physician labeling. Generally, Phase 3 clinical development programs consist of expanded, multi-site, large-scale studies of patients with the target disease or disorder to obtain statistical evidence of the efficacy and safety of the drug at the proposed dosing regimen. Phase 3 data often form the core basis on which the FDA evaluates a drug’s safety and effectiveness when considering the product application.
The sponsoring company, the FDA or the IRB may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Further, success in early-stage clinical trials does not assure success in later-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from clinical activities are not always conclusive and may be subject to alternative interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.
NDA Submission and Review. The FD&C Act provides two pathways for the approval of new drugs through an NDA. An NDA under Section 505(b) of the FD&C Act is a comprehensive application to support approval of a product candidate that includes, among other things, data and information to demonstrate that the proposed drug is safe and effective for its proposed uses, that production methods are adequate to ensure its identity, strength, quality, and purity of the drug, and that proposed labeling is appropriate and contains all necessary information. A 505(b)(1) NDA contains results of the full set of preclinical studies and clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the applicant to characterize and evaluate the product candidate.
Section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act provides an alternate regulatory pathway to obtain FDA approval that permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference.
We plan to seek FDA approval of nelitolimod through a 505(b)(1) regulatory approval pathway, as part of a combination regimen with checkpoint inhibitor(s). A combination regimen requires data demonstrating the contribution of each drug in the regimen to the treatment of the disease under study. For nelitolimod to obtain approval, we will be required to produce data to confirm its contribution to the regimen improves the efficacy of the therapeutic regimen. There is FDA precedent for this data to be obtained from a number of sources, including, a comparator in a controlled trial, prior FDA approvals, historic data from other clinical trials or meta-analysis of clinical practice or “real world” data.
In addition to a combined therapy, the inclusion of a drug (nelitolimod) and a cleared device component (TriNav) in the platform is likely to be considered a “combination product” under FDA regulations. For nelitolimod, we expect that the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (“CDER”) will have primary jurisdiction for review of the NDA, and the drug and cleared device will be reviewed as a combination product under one marketing application. For a drug-device combination product, CDER typically consults with the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health in the NDA review process. For TriNav to become part of a combination product, we may be required to produce data supporting TriNav or PEDD’s contribution to the efficacy of nelitolimod in the targeted indications beyond the original data used in support of 510(k) clearance of the TriNav device. In addition, our PRVI device is currently being studied in combination with nelitolimod in the PERIO-03 trial. The PRVI device has received 510(k) clearance and may in the future also meet the definition of a “combination product” under FDA regulations. For the PRVI device to become part of a combination product, we may be required to produce data supporting PRVI or PEDD’s contribution to the efficacy of nelitolimod in the targeted indications beyond the original data used in support of 510(k) clearance of the PRVI device.
23
Table of Contents
The submission of an NDA generally requires payment of a substantial user fee to the FDA, however a drug that has received an Orphan Drug Designation is not subject to this user fee. Moreover, under section 736(d)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, an applicant is eligible for a waiver of the application fee if the applicant is a small business submitting its first human drug application to the Agency for review and does not have another product approved under a human drug application and introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce. The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the manufacturing controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity. For some NDAs, the FDA may convene an advisory committee to seek insights and recommendations on issues relevant to approval of the application. Although the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, the FDA considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.
Additional regulatory requirements may be implicated. The FDA may determine that a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) is necessary to ensure that the benefits of a new product outweigh its risks prior to approving a new product. A REMS may include various elements, ranging from a medication guide or patient package insert to limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, depending on what the FDA considers necessary for the safe use of the drug. Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, as amended by the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, certain molecularly targeted oncology drugs require early evaluation. Specifically, if an original NDA or Biologics License Application for a new active ingredient for adults is directed at a molecular target FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer, study of the molecularly targeted pediatric cancer must be submitted with the marketing application, unless FDA waives or defers the requirement. FDA also inspects the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured prior to approving an NDA. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) requirements and an adequate quality system to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.
Once the FDA accepts an NDA submission — which occurs, if at all, within 60 days after submission of the NDA — the FDA’s goal for a non-priority review of an NDA is ten months. The review process can be and often is significantly extended, however, by FDA requests for additional information, studies, or clarification. After review of an NDA and the facilities where the product is manufactured, the FDA either issues an approval letter or a complete response letter (“CRL”) outlining the deficiencies in the submission. The CRL may require additional testing or information, including additional preclinical or clinical data. Even if such additional information and data are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA still does not meet the standards for approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than the sponsor. FDA’s goal for the review of an application granted priority review is six months after the 60-day acceptance period.
Developing a drug and obtaining regulatory approval often takes a number of years, involves the expenditure of substantial resources, and depends on a number of factors, including the severity of the disease in question, the availability of alternative treatments, and the risks and benefits demonstrated in clinical trials. Additionally, as a condition of approval, the FDA may impose restrictions that could affect the commercial success of a drug or require post-approval commitments, including the completion within a specified time period of additional clinical studies, which often are referred to as “Phase 4” or “post-marketing” studies.
Post-approval modifications to the drug or its use, such as changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, may require a sponsor to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, to be submitted in a new or supplemental NDA, which would require FDA approval.
Post-Approval Regulation
Once approved, drug and medical device products are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA. If ongoing regulatory requirements are not met, or if safety or manufacturing problems occur after the product reaches the market, the FDA may at any time withdraw product approval/clearance or take actions that would limit or suspend marketing. Additionally, the FDA may require post-marketing studies or clinical trials, changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, or the implementation of other risk management measures, including distribution-related restrictions, if there are new safety information developments.
Good Manufacturing Practices. Companies engaged in manufacturing drug products or their components must comply with applicable cGMP requirements and product-specific regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies. Compliance with cGMP includes adhering to requirements relating to organization and training of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, quality control and quality assurance, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, and records and reports. The FDA regulates and inspects equipment, facilities, and processes used in manufacturing pharmaceutical products prior to approval. If, after receiving approval, a company makes a material change in
24
Table of Contents
manufacturing equipment, location, or process (all of which are, to some degree, incorporated in the NDA), additional regulatory review and approval may be required. The FDA also conducts regular, periodic visits to re-inspect equipment, facilities, and processes following the initial approval of a product.
Failure to comply with applicable cGMP requirements and conditions of product approval may lead the FDA to take enforcement action or seek sanctions, including fines, issuance of warning letters, civil penalties, injunctions, suspension of manufacturing operations, operating restrictions, withdrawal of FDA approval, seizure or recall of products, and criminal prosecution. Although we periodically monitor the FDA compliance of our third-party manufacturers, we cannot be certain that our present or future third-party manufacturers will consistently comply with cGMP and other applicable FDA regulatory requirements.
We also need to comply with some of the FDA’s manufacturing and safety regulations for devices. In addition to cGMP, the FDA requires that devices or drug-device combination products comply with the QSR, which sets forth the FDA’s manufacturing quality standards for medical devices. The FDA also requires that we comply with certain device safety reporting requirements for device or a drug-device combination product.
Advertising and Promotion. The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies closely regulate the marketing and promotion of drugs and medical devices through, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, advertising and promotion to healthcare professionals, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and effectiveness that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs for “off-label” uses — that is, uses not approved by the FDA and not described in the product’s labeling — because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. Broadly speaking, a manufacturer may not promote a drug for off-label use, but under certain conditions may engage in non-promotional, balanced, scientific communication regarding off-label use. In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, state and federal fraud and abuse laws have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes a drug or medical device.
Other Requirements. Drug and medical device market authorization holders must comply with other regulatory requirements, including submitting annual reports, reporting information about adverse experiences, and maintaining certain records.
RLD Patents. In an NDA, a sponsor must identify patents that claim the drug substance or drug product or a method of using the drug. When the drug is approved, those patents are among the information about the product that is listed in the FDA publication Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations which is referred to as the Orange Book . Following a drug’s approval, a sponsor wishing to submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA” or “generic”) NDA or 505(b)(2) application seeking to rely on the originally approved product as the reference-listed drug (“RLD”) for its ANDA or 505(b)(2) must make one of several certifications regarding each listed patent. A “Paragraph I” certification is the sponsor’s statement that patent information has not been filed for the RLD. A “Paragraph II” certification is the sponsor’s statement that the RLD’s patents have expired. A “Paragraph III” certification is the sponsor’s statement that it will wait for the patent to expire before obtaining approval for its product. A “Paragraph IV” certification is an assertion that the patent does not block approval of the later product, either because the patent is invalid or unenforceable or because the patent, even if valid, is not infringed by the new product.
Regulatory Exclusivities. The Hatch-Waxman Act provides periods of regulatory exclusivity for products that would serve as RLDs for an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application. If a product is a “new chemical entity”, commonly referred to as an “NCE”, which generally indicates that the active moiety has never before been approved in any drug, there is a period of five years from the product’s approval during which the FDA may not accept for filing any ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a drug with the same active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application may be submitted after four years, however, if the sponsor of the application makes a Paragraph IV certification.
A product that is not an NCE may qualify for a three-year period of exclusivity if the NDA contains new clinical data, other than bioavailability studies, derived from studies conducted by or for the sponsor, which were necessary for approval. In that instance, the exclusivity period does not preclude filing or review of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application; rather, the
25
Table of Contents
FDA is precluded from granting final approval to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until three years after approval of the RLD. Additionally, the exclusivity applies only to the conditions of approval that required submission of the clinical data.
Once the FDA accepts for filing an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application containing a Paragraph IV certification, the applicant must within 20 days provide notice to the RLD or listed drug NDA holder and patent owner that the application has been submitted and provide the factual and legal basis for the applicant’s assertion that the patent is invalid or not infringed. If the NDA holder or patent owner files suit against the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant for patent infringement within 45 days of receiving the Paragraph IV notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a period of 30 months or the resolution of the underlying suit, whichever is earlier. If the RLD has NCE exclusivity and the notice is given and suit is filed during the fifth year of exclusivity, the regulatory stay extends until 7.5 years after the RLD approval. The FDA may approve the proposed product before the expiration of the regulatory stay if a court finds the patent invalid or not infringed or if the court shortens the period because the parties have failed to cooperate in expediting the litigation.
Patent Term Restoration. A portion of the patent term lost during product development and FDA review of an NDA may be restored if approval of the application is the first permitted commercial marketing of a drug containing the active ingredient. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of the IND or the date of patent grant (whichever is later) and the date of submission of the NDA, plus the time between the date of submission of the NDA and the date of FDA approval of the product. The maximum period of restoration is five years, and the patent cannot be extended to more than 14 years from the date of FDA approval of the product. Only one patent claiming each approved product is eligible for restoration and the patent holder must apply for restoration within 60 days of approval. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in consultation with the FDA reviews and approves the application for patent term restoration.
Other Exclusivities
Pediatric Exclusivity. Section 505A of the FD&C Act provides for six months of additional exclusivity or patent protection if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show that the product is effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent protection that cover the drug are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application owing to regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. When any product is approved, we will evaluate seeking pediatric exclusivity as appropriate.
Orphan Drug Exclusivity . The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for the development of drugs intended to treat rare diseases or conditions, which generally are diseases or conditions affecting less than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. If a sponsor demonstrates that a drug product qualifies for orphan drug designation, the FDA grants orphan drug designation to the product for that use. The benefits of orphan drug designation include research and development tax credits and exemption from user fees. A drug that is approved for the orphan drug designated indication generally is granted seven years of orphan drug exclusivity (to run concurrently with any other granted exclusivities). During that period, the FDA generally may not approve any other application for the same product for the same indication, although there are exceptions, most notably when the later product is shown to be clinically superior to the product with exclusivity. The FDA can revoke a product’s orphan drug exclusivity under certain circumstances, including when the product sponsor is unable to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the product to meet patient needs. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition.
Expedited Development and Review Programs . The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track Designation, Priority Review Designation, Accelerated Approval Program and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for drug development and the review of product candidates. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will be lengthened. Generally, product candidates that are eligible for these programs are those for serious or life- threatening conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. For example, Fast Track Designation is a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of product candidates to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and fill unmet medical needs. Priority Review Designation is designed to give a product candidate that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, an initial review within eight months as compared to a standard review time of within ten months of the
26
Table of Contents
date the FDA files the NDA. Although Fast Track Designation and Priority Review Designation do not affect the standards for approval, the FDA will attempt to facilitate early and frequent meetings with a sponsor of a Fast Track Designation product candidate and expedite review of the application for a Priority Review Designation product candidate.
U.S. Healthcare Reform
In the U.S., there have been and continue to be a number of healthcare-related legislative initiatives that have significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “Affordable Care Act”) was passed in March 2010, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and continues to significantly impact the pharmaceutical industry.
There have been judicial, congressional and executive branch challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the individual mandate was repealed by Congress. In addition, there have been a number of health reform initiatives by the Biden administration that have impacted the Affordable Care Act. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to legal challenges and additional health reform measures in the future.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional congressional action is taken. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 4% in the final fiscal year of this sequester.
There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the U.S. with respect to prescription-pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent 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, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the IRA, among other things, (1) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (2) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be implemented but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. Further, the Biden administration released an additional executive order on October 14, 2022, directing HHS to submit a report within 90 days on how the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation can be further leveraged to test new models for lowering drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. In response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.
It is possible that other healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, which may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.
27
Table of Contents
Coverage and Reimbursement
Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of our products and any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. Sales of any of our products and product candidates, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payors, including government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and private payors, such as commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. Third-party payors determine which drugs they will cover and the amount of reimbursement they will provide for a covered drug. In the U.S., there is no uniform system among payors for making coverage and reimbursement decisions. In addition, the process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. 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.
In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for our products we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costly studies required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Even if we conduct pharmacoeconomic studies, our products and product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective by payors. Further, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved.
Furthermore, the healthcare industry in the U.S. has experienced a trend toward cost containment as government and private insurers seek to control healthcare costs by imposing lower payment rates and negotiating reduced contract rates with service providers. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the procedures using our products will be reimbursed at a cost-effective level. Nor can we be certain that third-party payors using a methodology that sets amounts based on the type of procedure performed, such as those utilized by government programs and in many privately managed care systems, will view the cost of our products to be justified so as to incorporate such costs into the overall cost of the procedure. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to achieve profitability. Moreover, we are unable to predict what changes will be made to the reimbursement methodologies used by third-party payors in the future. For example, CMS awarded TPT payments for TriNav for the two-year period through December 31, 2022. On December 29, 2022, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (H.R. 2617) was signed into law and includes an extension of TPT status for certain devices, including TriNav, through December 31, 2023. In December 2023, CMS granted a New Technology HCPCS code for procedures involving TriNav. This new code, C9797, became effective on January 1, 2024, and may be reported by hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgical centers. There can be no assurance that continuing reimbursement will be available at similar reimbursement rates or at all.
Additional legislative changes, regulatory changes and judicial challenges related to the Affordable Care Act remain possible, as discussed above under the subheading “U.S. Healthcare Reform.” In addition, there likely will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators, and third-party payors to contain healthcare costs. Thus, even if we obtain favorable coverage and reimbursement status for our products and any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws
In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, our business is subject to healthcare fraud and abuse regulation and enforcement by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. These laws include, but are not limited to, the following:
• The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Affordable Care Act, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate in order to commit a violation.
• The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act, which can be enforced by private individuals on behalf of the government through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, and civil monetary penalty laws prohibit individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment of government funds, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government or knowingly concealing or
28
Table of Contents
knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government.
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations (collectively, “HIPAA”), prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors. HIPAA also prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.
• HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”) and its implementing regulations, imposes obligations on “covered entities,” including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective “business associates” and their subcontractors that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed under HIPAA and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA.
• The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Several states now require pharmaceutical companies to report expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of pharmaceutical products in those states and to report gifts and payments to individual health care providers in those states. Some of these states also prohibit certain marketing-related activities including the provision of gifts, meals, or other items to certain health care providers. Other states have laws requiring pharmaceutical sales representatives to be registered or licensed, and still others impose limits on co-pay assistance that pharmaceutical companies can offer to patients. In addition, several states require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs or marketing codes.
• The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, implemented as the Open Payments program, and its implementing regulations, requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS information related to direct or indirect payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held in the company by physicians and their immediate family members.
Compliance with such laws and regulations requires substantial resources. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to legal challenge and enforcement actions. In the event governmental authorities conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations, they may impose sanctions under these laws, which are potentially significant and may include civil monetary penalties, damages, exclusion of an entity or individual from participation in government health care programs, criminal fines and imprisonment, additional reporting requirements if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other settlement to resolve allegations of violations of these laws, as well as the potential curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
In addition, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 prohibits corporations and their intermediaries 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 official of another country, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in that capacity.
Facilities
Our principal office is located in Westminster, Colorado, where we lease approximately 21,000 square feet of office, manufacturing, and warehouse space pursuant to a lease that expires on December 31, 2026. The lease includes two
29
Table of Contents
extension options, each for five years. We have not yet determined if we will exercise the extension options. We also lease office facilities in Bannockburn, Illinois, and Cranston, Rhode Island. We also lease laboratory space at Rhode Island hospital in Providence, Rhode Island. We believe our facilities are adequate to meet our current needs, although we may seek to negotiate new leases or evaluate additional or alternate space for our operations. We believe appropriate alternative space will be readily available on commercially reasonable terms.
Our Team
As of March 5, 2024, we had approximately 112 full-time employees, including 10 employees who held Ph.D. or M.D. degrees.
None of our employees is represented by a labor union or covered under collective bargaining agreement. We have not experienced any material work stoppages and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good, healthy and transparent. We actively engage with managers to collect feedback and ideas on how to improve our working environment.
Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purpose of our equity and cash incentive plans is to attract, retain, and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of TriSalus by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.
Corporate Information
Our principal executive offices are located at 6272 W. 91st Ave., Westminster, Colorado 80031 and our telephone number is (888) 321-5212. Our corporate website address is www.trisaluslifesci.com. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this prospectus, and the inclusion of our website address in this Annual Report is an inactive textual reference only. For additional information, see the “Introductory Statement” to this Annual Report, Item 7- Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this Annual Report, and (3) Business Combination of our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023, included in Item 8 of this Annual Report for more information regarding the Merger.
We and our subsidiaries own or have rights to trademarks, trade names and service marks that they use in connection with the operation of their business. Other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this prospectus are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, in some cases, the trademarks, trade names and service marks referred to in this prospectus are listed without the applicable ®, ™ and SM symbols.