Tempest Therapeutics, Inc. 10-K

ITEM 1. BUSINESS Overview We are a clinical-stage oncology company focused on leveraging our deep scientific understanding of cancer biology and medicinal chemistry to develop and advance novel, orally available therapies for the treatment of solid tumors. Our philosophy is to build a company based upon not only good ideas and creative science, but also upon the efficient translation of those ideas into therapies that will improve patients’ lives. To this end, we are advancing TPST-1120 and TPST-1495, two product candidates in clinical trials that we believe are the first clinical-stage molecules designed to inhibit their respective targets; as well as two preclinical programs, including one that could be the first to target TREX-1, a key cellular enzyme that regulates the innate immune response in tumors. TPST-1120 is a selective antagonist of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha, or PPARα. Clinical data from initial Phase 1 trials, both as a monotherapy and in combination with an anti-PD1 therapy, nivolumab, were reported at a podium presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference in June 2022. RECIST responses were observed at the two highest TPST-1120 doses in combination with standard dose nivolumab for an objective response rate ("ORR") of those cohorts of 30% (3 of 10 patients), including in patients who previously progressed on anti-PD-1 (-L1) therapy. TPST-1120 is also being studied in an ongoing global randomized Phase 1b/2 trial in combination with the standard-of-care first-line regimen of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC. The study has fully enrolled (targeting 40 patients in each arm), and we expect the initial data in the first half of 2023. Our second clinical program, TPST-1495, a dual antagonist of the EP2 and EP4 receptors of prostaglandin E2, is in an ongoing Phase 1 monotherapy and combination trial in solid tumors. We expect data from the TPST-1495 Phase 1 trial to be presented at a cancer conference in 2023, if accepted to present. Additionally, we have what we believe to be exciting third and fourth preclinical programs targeting the three prime repair exonuclease (“TREX-1”) and a novel oncology drug target in a newly defined pathway, respectively. Beyond these four ongoing programs, we plan to continue to leverage our drug development and company-building experience along with academic relationships to identify promising new targets that may feed new programs into our pipeline. 3 Our Pipeline Our product development pipeline consists of the following orally available therapies, which if approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA"), we believe will be first in class: 1. Timing is an estimate based on current projections and status of programs 2. Pursuant to a collaboration with Roche; we retain all product rights. Based on partner projections, ORR on triplet arm expected in the first half of 2023, with additional data later in 2023. Timing of data presentation to be determined with partner. 3. If accepted to present 4. Occurrence and timing of event dependent on program progress Strategy Our team has come together to build an integrated company that delivers meaningful therapies to cancer patients by leveraging our collective capabilities and experience. We expect to build value for our stockholders with the following over-arching strategy: • Advance TPST-1120, including by facilitating our collaboration with Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., or Roche, which is evaluating TPST-1120 in a randomized, global, first-line HCC study that commenced enrollment in September 2021. Because TPST-1120 is being combined with a standard-of-care first-line treatment and being compared to that same standard-of-care, we believe positive study results may provide strategic opportunities for us in 2023. We expect to receive objective response rate, or ORR, results from this randomized study in the first half of 2023, and subject to receipt of additional capital, are evaluating further development in RCC and CCA based on the Phase 1 data presented at ASCO 2022. • Advance TPST-1495 through clinical development to near-term meaningful data. We plan to present data from the TPST-1495 monotherapy and combination therapy arms of the Phase 1a/b study at the ASCO conference in 2023, if accepted to present, and continue enrollment of the ongoing combination arm in patients with advanced endometrial cancer, where prostaglandin signaling is implicated. We expect to have ORR data from the endometrial arm in 2024. 4 • Advance our preclinical programs into clinical studies, including our TREX-1 inhibitor. Members of our team developed the first-in-human STING (STimulator of INterferon Genes) agonists in a prior company and are widely acknowledged to be leaders in the field. We believe that a selective TREX-1 inhibitor given orally is an innovative approach to selectively engage the STING pathway broadly in the tumor microenvironment of metastatic disease. Our medicinal chemists have developed a series of potent compounds against human TREX-1, which we are optimizing towards selecting a development candidate for investigational new drug application (“IND”)-enabling activities in 2023. • Explore business development opportunities to maximize the potential of our pipeline and extend financial resources. We believe that our pipeline has broad potential reach and partnerships that bring in additional expertise and/or geographic presence could be important to increase the likelihood of success. We currently own all rights to our programs. We intend to become a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company and build a targeted sales force in the United States to support the commercialization of our drug candidates, if approved. • Enhance our pipeline by identifying novel oncology targets and in-licensing opportunities. Although we believe we have a robust pipeline, we continue to evaluate and pursue novel targets, intellectual property and product candidates for acquisition and in-licensing to supplement our internal research efforts and further build our pipeline of targeted molecules for oncology. Through our team’s focus and expertise in oncology and immunology, as well as established relationships with oncology and immunology thought leaders, we believe we are positioning the company as a partner of choice for innovative oncology drug candidate development. Continued advances in the biological understanding of diseases should provide opportunities to further expand our portfolio with preclinical and/or clinical product candidates. Clinical Programs TPST-1120: PPARα Transcription Factor Antagonist TPST-1120, potentially a first-in-class oral small molecule antagonist of PPARα, has completed a Phase 1a/b trial, and is currently being studied in a randomized Phase 1b/2 trial. The Phase 1a/b trial was a multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation, that evaluated TPST-1120 as both a monotherapy and in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Results from both the monotherapy and combination arms were presented in an oral presentation at the ASCO conference in 2022. The ongoing Phase 1b/2 trial is a randomized, multicenter, global study in collaboration with Roche that is evaluating TPST-1120 in combination with atezolizumab (Tecentriq®) and bevacizumab (Avastin®) in previously untreated patients with advanced HCC, compared to atezolizumab and bevacizumab, which is a standard of care for that indication and patient population. We expect to have initial data from the trial in the first half of 2023. Tumors evolve to modulate metabolism to promote their own survival, promote angiogenesis and to evade immune recognition. PPARα is a transcription factor that is activated through binding of long-chain fatty acid ligands, which in turn regulates the expression of >100 genes that control glucose and lipid homeostasis, inflammation, proliferation, differentiation and cell death. Included among these regulated genes are those that enable fatty acid oxidation, or FAO, and β-oxidation metabolic pathways in cellular peroxisomes and in mitochondria. An FAO metabolic profile is associated with tumor proliferation, induction of angiogenesis and immune suppression. Published studies and internal Tempest analyses of over 9,000 primary or metastatic tumor samples in the Human Cancer Genome, or TCGA, public database reveal a metabolic gene expression profile characterized by increased PPARα, FAO genes and lipogenesis associated with increased metastatic potential and reduced survival enrichment among multiple cancers, including HCC, cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), breast carcinoma, colorectal adenocarcinoma, renal cell cancer (RCC), lung adenocarcinoma and prostate adenocarcinoma. TPST-1120 is designed to block the pathways that support tumor cell proliferation, angiogenesis and immune suppression, resulting in reduced disease and patient benefit. 5 Summary of TPST-1120 Preclinical Results We have conducted pre-clinical pharmacology studies along with pharmacokinetics, or PK, and toxicology studies with TPST-1120 to support its ongoing evaluation for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors. The combined results of the preclinical studies that we have performed indicate that TPST-1120’s anti-tumor mechanism of action involves both directly inhibiting tumor proliferation and targeting suppressive immune response pathways to promote effective tumor-specific immunity. Our preclinical results support the large body of published literature that the PPARα target genes play an integral role in tumor growth, angiogenesis and evasion of immune recognition, and provide the scientific rationale for targeting this pathway with TPST-1120. Immune checkpoint blockade enhances anti-tumor immunity by restoring the activity of cytotoxic T (Teff) cells. Emerging experimental results suggest that inhibiting FAO with a PPARα antagonist may target resistance mechanisms to both anti-PD-L1/PD-1 and anti-VEGF therapies, supporting the combination of TPST-1120 with either or both therapies. We have conducted preclinical studies showing that while both TPST-1120 or anti-PD-1 monotherapy inhibited outgrowth of established flank MC38 tumors, the combination of these two agents resulted in synergistic anti-tumor activity. In addition, MC38 tumor-bearing mice cured by the combination therapy, unlike age-matched naïve control mice, were completely refractory to tumor growth when rechallenged with autologous MC38 tumor cells, demonstrating that TPST-1120 in combination with anti-PD-1 induced lasting tumor-specific immune memory. In addition, activating mutations in the Wnt/B-catenin pathway represent the most frequently dysregulated pathway in HCC. Such mutations render a tumor cell dependent upon FAO for its energy source, and in preclinical studies, Tempest has shown reduction and long-term durable cures in mice bearing Wnt/B-catenin activated HCC tumors treated with TPST-1120 and an immune checkpoint inhibitor. 6 Efficacy in Syngeneic β-Catenin-driven Hepatocellular Carcinoma Model Tumor resistance to anti-angiogenic drugs is also associated with elevated lipogenesis and FAO, primarily through the vascular regression and hypoxic environment that this class of therapies engenders. In response, tumor cells can switch to FAO as a mechanism of resistance against anti-angiogenic therapy. In a preclinical study, we confirmed that combination of TPST-1120 with tyrosine kinase inhibitor-, or TKI-, based anti-angiogenesis therapy confers potent anti-tumor activity. Taken together, the experimental results provide scientific rationale for the ongoing clinical evaluation of TPST-1120 therapy in first-line HCC in combination with atezolizumab and bevacizumab, as well as the potential evaluation of TPST-1120 in combination with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, or TKI, in FAO-reliant malignancies such as HCC and RCC. Overview of TPST-1120 Clinical Trials We completed a Phase 1a/b TPST-1120 study and a randomized Phase 1b/2 clinical study is ongoing. The Phase 1a/b trial evaluated both monotherapy and combination therapy with the anti-PD-1 agent nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors that our PPARα- dependent transcriptome analysis of diverse human cancers revealed favor the usage of FAO. Results from both the monotherapy and the combination arms were presented in an oral presentation at the ASCO conference in 2022. TPST-1120 demonstrated monotherapy clinical benefit in patients with late-line, treatment-refractory cancers where responses would not be expected, including pancreatic, CCA, and colorectal cancers ("CRC"). Results showed that 53% (10/19) of patients experienced clinical benefit in the form of disease control, including tumor shrinkage in 21% of the patients. Shown below, one subject with late line cholangiocarcinoma had a 15% tumor shrinkage and was on study for over nine months of treatment, while also demonstrating on-target inhibition of expression of PPARα target genes on pharmacodynamic, ("PD"), assessment. 7 In the combination therapy portion of the trial, 15 evaluable patients with heavily-pretreated RCC, HCC and CCA were treated with oral twice-daily TPST-1120 and the anti-PD-1 therapy, nivolumab. All the HCC and RCC patients had received an approved anti-PD-1 therapy in at least one prior line of therapy and discontinued that treatment due to disease progression. We observed objective responses (RECIST v1.1) in two patients with late-line RCC who had previously progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy without having achieved an objective response (ORR 50%, n=2/4, in evaluable RCC patients), and we observed mixed response in a third RCC IO-refractory patient with significant reduction (>30%) in the target lesion, but also the appearance of new disease that precluded a RECIST PR. A third RECIST response was observed in a patient with late-line, heavily pre-treated CCA, a tumor type generally not responsive to anti-PD-1 therapy alone. Notably, one RCC patient who achieved a partial response after treatment with TPST-1120 and nivolumab had previously been treated with the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab without experiencing an objective response and progressed on treatment, followed by further progression of cancer on both cabozantinib and everolimus. The initial RECIST PR was seen at the first on-study assessment at eight weeks and included a response in all target lesions as well as complete radiographic 8 resolution of multiple sites of metastatic disease (see CT scan below), and has been confirmed at subsequent assessments beyond 11 months. Partial Response in Late-Line RCC Patient Treated with TPST-1120 and Nivolumab Combination Therapy TPST-1120 is also under investigation in an ongoing randomized clinical trial in first-line HCC. We entered into a clinical collaboration with Roche to evaluate TPST-1120 in combination with atezolizumab and bevacizumab in patients with advanced/metastatic HCC who have not yet been treated with systemic therapy. Roche is operationalizing this trial to evaluate the triplet regimen of TPST-1120 + atezolizumab + bevacizumab randomized against the standard-of-care doublet of atezolizumab + bevacizumab, targeting 40 patients to participate in each of the two study arms. The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the anti-tumor efficacy of the combination as determined by confirmed ORR by RECIST 1.1. Additional efficacy endpoints include progression free survival, or PFS, overall survival, or OS, and duration of response, or DOR, while a key exploratory objective is to identify biomarkers that are predictive of response to the experimental treatment, including an assessment activation of the ß-catenin pathway, which is predicted to be present in up to 50% of patients with HCC. The study has fully enrolled, and we anticipate receiving initial ORR results in the first half of 2023, and are considering the additional development of TPST-1120 in selected indications in combination with immunotherapy and/or anti-angiogenesis therapy. We own worldwide rights to TPST-1120, and have filed and been issued patents, including composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, and related methods of use, that are expected to expire in December 2033, with giving effect to any patent term extensions. TPST-1495: Dual EP2/EP4 Prostaglandin Receptor Antagonist Our second clinical molecule is TPST-1495, a potentially first-in-class, oral, small molecule dual antagonist of the prostaglandin E2, or PGE2, receptors, EP2 and EP4. TPST-1495 is engineered to inhibit only these receptors while sparing the homologous - but differentially active - EP1 and EP3 receptors. There is extensive literature demonstrating that PGE2 both enhances tumor proliferation and inhibits anti-cancer immune function; it is known from the scientific literature that many tumors express elevated levels of the cyclooxygenase enzymes that produce PGE2. We have an ongoing Phase 1a/b dose and schedule optimization study evaluating TPST-1495 in both monotherapy and combination therapy with the anti-PD-1 agent pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. In this study, we have observed dose-dependent TPST-1495 exposure, on-target pharmacodynamic changes, a manageable safety profile, and a reduction of tumor burden in some subjects. An ongoing study arm is testing the combination of TPST-1495 (including two doses, which should provide support under the FDA’s Optimus program) and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer based upon data supporting the role of prostaglandin signaling and 9 COX-2 over-expression in the disease. We plan to present data from the monotherapy and combination therapy dose and schedule optimization arms at a healthcare conference in 2023 and from the combination arm in patients with endometrial cancer in 2024. Elevated expression of COX-2 and overproduction of PGE2 is correlated with progression of diverse malignancies by stimulating tumor cell proliferation, survival, evasion and metastasis as well as host angiogenesis. In addition, PGE2 suppresses anti-tumor immunity by inhibiting the function of critical anti-tumor immune effector cell populations such as dendritic cells, natural killer ("NK cells"), T cells, and M1 macrophages, while promoting the activity of suppressive immune cell populations including myeloid-derived suppressor cells ("MDSCs"), M2 macrophages, and regulatory T cells. Additionally, recent studies have shown that increased expression of COX-2 and production of PGE2 can play a role in the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and in the development of adaptive resistance to therapy. This body of literature provides the scientific rationale for developing therapeutics that maximally inhibit the prostaglandin pathway, as well as for combining TPST-1495 with immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibodies. Overall, as a dual antagonist targeting EP2 and EP4 while preserving PGE2 signaling through EP1 and EP3 to maintain functional immunity, we believe that TPST-1495 offers the potential for unique therapeutic properties as compared to either broad inhibition of PGE2 signaling via COX inhibitors or EP4 only. We conducted preclinical studies to evaluate the ability of TPST-1495 to reverse PGE2-mediated suppression of primary human monocyte to dendritic cell differentiation and activation in vitro, as well as the comparative capacity for TPST-1495 and the single EP4 antagonist E7046 (TPST-7317) to reverse prostaglandin-mediated immune suppression in conditions of both high and low PGE2 concentrations in human monocyte cultures in vitro in order to test the capacity of TPST-1495 to reverse immune suppression in a broad range of PGE2 levels that may encompass the range in the tumor microenvironment, or TME. The data from the results suggest that at appropriate dose levels, TPST-1495 may completely block signaling through both EP2 and EP4 pathways in the TME and that this dual blockade is more effective than EP4 blockade alone to reverse PGE2-mediated immune suppression. We also conducted preclinical studies using several tumor mouse models to evaluate the anti-tumor activity of TPST-1495 and to compare our potency to a single EP4 antagonist, E7046, developed by Eisai Co. Ltd. (“Esai”). We believe that these results demonstrate that TPST-1495 has increased therapeutic activity in tumor-bearing mouse models and has significantly improved anti-tumor activity compared to single EP4 antagonists. As shown in the Figure below, TPST-1495 demonstrated significant efficacy as a monotherapy when given to Balb/c mice bearing established flank CT26 colon tumors. Administration of TPST-1495 at 100 mg/kg twice a day, or BID, significantly increased the total T cell number and percentage of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells within the tumor compared to vehicle control, and consistent with increased T cells in the TME, the absolute number and frequency of AH1 tetramer+ T cells was also significantly elevated in the tumor draining lymph node. 10 TPST-1495 Anti-Tumor Response in Mice Correlates with Increased CD8+ T cells and Reduced regs in the TME Overview of Ongoing TPST-1495 Clinical Trials TPST-1495 is being evaluated in an ongoing first-in-human, Phase 1, multicenter, open-label, schedule and dose optimization trial in subjects with late-stage solid tumor cancers that are deemed incurable. Study objectives include evaluation of safety, tolerability, PK, pharmacodynamics, or PD, and preliminary anti-tumor activity of TPST-1495 as monotherapy and in combination with the checkpoint inhibitor, pembrolizumab. TPST-1495 has been evaluated on a once daily (“QD”) or twice daily (“BID”) schedule and with continuous or intermittent administration as monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab. Subjects with all histologic types of solid tumors have been eligible, with an ongoing combination arm enrolling patients with endometrial cancer. Preliminary PK analysis shows a nearly linear, dose-proportional, relationship of steady state drug exposure to administered dose of TPST-1495, representing data from subjects receiving TPST-1495 on once-daily and twice-daily as well as continuous and intermittent dosing schedules. Our preliminary PD assessment in subjects treated with TPST-1495 includes both a PGE2 whole blood immune suppression assay conducted with patient blood and measurements of a stable metabolite of PGE2, known as PGEM, in the urine. Shown in the Figure below, the PD results indicate target engagement in subjects dosed with 100 mg, 25 mg or 15 mg of TPST-1495, as indicated by the reversal of PGE2 immune suppression in the whole blood assay, as indicated by the increase of TNFα production due to TPST-1495 exposure in whole blood monocytes upon lipopolysaccharide ("LPS") stimulation and suppression of exogenously added PGE2. We have also observed increased levels of PGEM in the urine, resulting from TPST-1495 antagonism of EP2 and EP4 receptors (inferred through measurement of the PGEM metabolite). We have also evaluated the TME of some patients by immunohistochemistry, or IHC, for infiltration of T cells into the tumor. These studies were conducted with tumor biopsies taken pre- and on-treatment with TPST-1495 revealed in some cases the infiltration of cytotoxic T cells. 11 Recovery of TNF-a Production in Whole Blood on the First Day Following Dosing of TPST-1495 Percent increase of TNF-α measured in subjects’ whole blood as indicated by ELISA following stimulation with LPS alone with and without exogenously added PGE2 sampled at the times indicated in the legend post dosing. The values expressed reflect the percent recovery of TNF-α production observed in the presence of PGE2 and TPST-1495 in subject plasma as compared to the level TNF-α production in subject plasma stimulated with LPS alone (without PGE2). If accepted, we will present the TPST-1495 initial monotherapy and combination therapy results at the ASCO conference in 2023, followed by data from the ongoing arms in patients with endometrial cancer in 2024. We own worldwide rights to TPST-1495, and have filed and been issued patents, including composition of matter and pharmaceutical compositions, that are expected to expire between April 2038 and October 2042, without giving effect to any patent term extensions. Preclinical Programs TREX-1 Inhibitor Program We believe that the exonuclease TREX-1 may be the optimal approach to drug the STING pathway with an orally available small molecule inhibitor. Extensive genetic evidence from human disease that has been confirmed in numerous mouse knock-out investigations point to the STING pathway as a critical innate immune sensor for the development of anti-tumor immunity. Although the STING pathway has significant scientific validation, clinical trials utilizing synthetic cyclic dinucleotide STING agonists have been somewhat disappointing. The underlying scientific hypothesis for these clinical trials was that localized T cell priming in the lymph nodes draining from the injected tumor would have activity against non-injected distal tumors, referred to as the "abscopal effect." Because metastatic tumors have unique antigenic repertoires, we believe an effective therapeutic would need to catalyze innate activation in the TME of multiple metastases in order to prime T cells that can recognize and eradicate distinct tumors. However, we believe it would be difficult to achieve a therapeutic index with systemically delivered STING-agonists due to the ubiquitous expression of the target as a central innate immune receptor. 12 TREX-1 is a cytosolic exonuclease that inhibits activation of the cGAS/ STING pathway by degrading double-stranded ("ds") DNA in the cytoplasm. TREX-1 expression is increased across diverse malignancies for multiple reasons, including defects in DNA repair mechanism and particular therapeutic interventions such as DNA-modifying chemotherapeutic agents or radiation. The increased expression of TREX-1 in tumors serves as foundational scientific evidence that tumors can hijack this pathway to prevent activation of the STING pathway and avoid immune recognition. In contrast to administering a direct STING agonist systemically, we believe that systemic oral dosing with a potent and specific TREX-1 inhibitor will activate the STING pathway selectively in the "TME" and prime cytolytic CD8+ T cells broadly in tumor draining lymph nodes, thereby serving distinct metastatic lesions having unique antigenic repertoires. TREX-1 DNA Exonuclease Modulates cGAS/STING Pathway and Innate Immunity We have developed small molecule inhibitors of TREX1 with drug-like physicochemical properties and picomolar potency against both human and mouse TREX1. As shown below, we have observed anti-tumor activity in mice treated with TREX1 small molecule inhibitors in combination with low-dose doxorubicin to induce dsDNA breaks and increase TME TREX1 expression. TREX-1 Inhibitor Anti-Tumor Activity with Tool Compound 13 We believe we have significantly advanced the program and potentially the field by generating the first human and mouse TREX1 co-crystal structures that will guide our SAR activities to develop new chemical matter with increasingly desirable properties. In addition, we have developed a battery of biochemical, biophysical, and cell-based assays that we believe will enable us to profile new TREX1 inhibitors. We plan to continue development towards selecting a development candidate by the end of 2023. Undisclosed Target Program In September 2021, we announced that we entered into an exclusive license agreement with the University of California at Berkeley for intellectual property covering a novel drug target that is a component of, to our knowledge, a newly defined pathway that controls the production of a cytokine that tumors can evolve to block to avoid immune recognition and promote metastasis. Interestingly, the target is a suppressor protein, so is predictably not inactivated by progressing tumors and therefore should remain a target for drug inactivation. License Agreements In February 2021, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Roche to accelerate the development of TPST-1120 into a global, first-line, randomized study. Under the terms of the agreement, the companies are evaluating TPST-1120 in a Phase 1b/2 clinical study in combination with the standard-of-care first-line regimen of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic HCC, not previously treated with systemic therapy. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Roche is managing the study operations for the trial, and we will retain global development and commercialization rights to TPST-1120. According to the agreement, Roche will provide us with notice of the amount of TPST-1120 required for a study and the delivery timeline, and we will supply the TPST-1120 to Roche for the study. All rights to invention and discoveries relating solely to TPST-1120 or biomarkers solely related to TPST-1120 made during any study will be our exclusive property. All data generated in the performance of any study under the collaboration agreement will be the property of Roche, but we are entitled to use the data for any lawful purpose. The agreement applies on a study-by-study basis until the last treatment of the last patient in a study receiving TPST-1120 in accordance with the protocol for such study or until the termination of this collaboration agreement by either party. Each party has the right to terminate the collaboration agreement upon 60 days prior written notice to the other party. Upon any termination of the agreement, neither we nor Roche will be entitled to any compensation, damages or other payment. If any individual study supplement is terminated, Roche must return all unused TPST-1120 to us free of charge or destroy such product at our request. Sales and Marketing We intend to retain significant development and commercial rights to our product candidates and, if marketing approval is obtained, to commercialize our product candidates on our own, or potentially with a partner, in the United States and other regions. We currently have no sales, marketing or commercial product distribution capabilities. We intend to build the necessary infrastructure and capabilities over time for the United States, and potentially other regions, following further advancement of our product candidates. Clinical data, the size of the addressable patient population, the size of the commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs may all influence or alter its commercialization plans. If we build a commercial infrastructure to support marketing in North America, such commercial infrastructure could be expected to include a targeted sales force supported by sales management, internal sales support, an internal marketing group and distribution support. To develop the appropriate commercial infrastructure internally, we would have to invest financial and management resources, some of which would have to be deployed prior to any confirmation that one of our product candidates will be approved. Manufacturing We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial 14 manufacture if any of our product candidates obtain marketing approval. We also rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to package, label, store and distribute our investigational product candidates, as well as for our commercial products if marketing approval is obtained. We have internal personnel and utilize consultants with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical and quality experience to oversee contract manufacturing and testing activities. We will continue to expand and strengthen our network of third-party providers but may also consider investing in internal manufacturing capabilities in the future if there is a technical need, or a strategic or financial benefit. Manufacturing is subject to extensive regulations that impose procedural and documentation requirements. At a minimum these regulations govern record keeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance. Our systems, procedures and contractors are required to be in compliance with these regulations and are assessed through regular monitoring and formal audits. Competition The biopharmaceutical and immuno-oncology industries are characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will have to compete with existing and future new therapies. While we believe that our technology, development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including large and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research institutions, government agencies and public and private research institutions that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. If our TPST-1120, TPST-1495, or our other product candidates are approved for the treatment of tumors, they may compete with other products used to treat such diseases. There are a variety of treatments used for cancerous tumors that include chemotherapy drugs, small molecules, monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, bi-specific antibodies, cell therapies, oncolytic viruses and vaccines, as well as other approaches. In addition, there are several competitors in clinical development for the treatment of HCC, RCC, cholangiocarcinoma, CRC and other indications that we may be targeting with TPST-1120 and TPST-1495, including companies such as Agios, Ikena, Ono, Adlai Nortye, Merck, Roche, Exelixis, and AstraZeneca. TPST-1120, our small molecule designed to be a selective antagonist of PPARα, is the first PPARα antagonist in the clinic. We are not aware of other companies developing such an antagonist. For TPST-1495, our small molecule designed to be a dual antagonist of the EP2 and EP4 receptor, we are aware of other clinical-stage EP-4-only antagonists being developed by Adlai Nortye, Ikena, and Ono. Many of our competitors, either alone or with strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance, rendering our treatments obsolete or non-competitive. Merger and acquisition activity in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunity could be substantially limited if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, safer, less toxic, more convenient or less expensive than our comparable products. In geographies that are critical to our commercial success, competitors may also obtain regulatory approvals before us, resulting in our competitors building a strong market position in advance of the entry of our products. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and availability of reimbursement. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic drugs. 15 Intellectual Property We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to our business, including obtaining, maintaining, and defending our patent rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications and obtaining issued patents in the United States and in markets outside of the United States directed to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our proprietary technology and product candidates and continuing innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of oncology. We also plan to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions when available. Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates; to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including any patents that we may own or license in the future; and to operate without infringing on the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. As of December 31, 2022, our patent portfolio consisted of issued patents and pending patent applications that we own or in-licensed related to TPST-1120, TPST-1495 and various other compounds and programs, such as TREX1 and our fourth, undisclosed program. In total, as of the same date, we owned five issued United States patents, thirteen pending United States patent applications, and in various markets outside of the United States, including Europe, China and Japan: 42 issued patents and 23 pending patent applications. With respect to TPST-1120, we own issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, China, Japan, and other markets outside of the United States. The issued United States patents covering TPST-1120 as composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, and related methods of use are expected to expire in December 2033, absent any patent term extensions for regulatory delay. Any additional patents that may issue from these pending patent applications are expected to expire between December 2033 and November 2044, absent any patent term adjustments or patent term extensions for regulatory delay. With respect to TPST-1495, we own issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, China, Japan, and other markets outside of the United States. The issued United State patents covering TPST-1495 as composition of matter, pharmaceutical composition, and related methods of use are expected to expire between April 2038 and April 2039, absent any patent term extensions for regulatory delay. Any additional patents that may issue from these pending patent applications are expected to expire between April 2038 and November 2044, absent any patent term adjustments or patent term extensions for regulatory delay. With respect to TREX-1, we own pending patent applications in the United States and Taiwan. Any patents that may issue from these pending patent applications are expected to expire between June 2041 and June 2044, absent any patent term adjustments or patent term extensions for regulatory delay. As of December 31, 2022, our patent portfolio also included a pending patent application in the United States that is exclusively licensed to us by the University of California at Berkeley. The licensed patent application does not cover any of our current product candidates. We also possess substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to the development and commercialization of our product candidates, including related manufacturing processes and technology. With respect to our product candidates and processes that we intend to develop and commercialize in the normal course of business, we intend to pursue patent protection covering, when possible, compositions, methods of use, dosing, and formulations. We may also pursue patent protection with respect to manufacturing and drug development processes and technologies. 16 Issued patents can provide protection for varying periods of time, depending upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In general, patents issued for patent applications filed in the United States can provide exclusionary rights for 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. The term of United States patents may be extended by delays encountered during prosecution that are caused by the USPTO, also known as patent term adjustment. In addition, in certain instances, the term of an issued United States patent that covers or claims an FDA approved product can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, which is called patent term extension. The restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term, including the restoration period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The term of patents outside of the United States varies in accordance with the laws of the foreign jurisdiction, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in patents in the field of oncology has emerged in the United States. The relevant patent laws and their interpretation outside of the United States are also uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our technology or product candidates and could affect the value of such intellectual property. In particular, our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing products that infringe our intellectual property will depend in part on our success in obtaining and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions, and improvements. We cannot guarantee that patents will be granted with respect to any of its pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications we may file in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting its products, the methods of use or manufacture of those products. Moreover, even its issued patents may not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of its products. Patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology space are evolving and involve many risks and uncertainties. For example, third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our product candidates and practicing our proprietary technology, and our issued patents may be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related products or could limit the term of patent protection that otherwise may exist for its product candidates. In addition, the scope of the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies that are outside the scope of the rights granted under any issued patents. For these reasons, we may face competition with respect to our product candidates. Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing, and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any particular product candidate can be commercialized, any patent protection for such product may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing the commercial advantage the patent provides. Government Regulation Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries and jurisdictions extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of pharmaceutical products, such as our investigational medicines and any future investigational medicines. Generally, before a new pharmaceutical product can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority. 17 FDA Approval Process In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve pending a New Drug Applications ("NDA") warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution. Our investigational medicines and any future investigational medicines must be approved by the FDA pursuant to an NDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following: • Completion of extensive preclinical laboratory and animal studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including studies conducted in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice ("GLP") requirements; • Submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; • Approval by an Institutional Review Board ("IRB") or independent ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each clinical trial may be commenced; • Performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for each proposed indication; • Submission to the FDA of an NDA; • Payment of any user fees for FDA review of an NDA; • A determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA to accept the filing for review; • Satisfactory completion of one or more FDA pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug, or components thereof, will be produced to assess compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; • Satisfactory completion of any potential FDA audits of the clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA to assure compliance with GCPs and integrity of the clinical data; • FDA review and approval of an NDA, including consideration of the views of any FDA advisory committee; and • Compliance with any post-approval requirements, including risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”), where applicable, and post-approval studies required by the FDA as a condition of approval. The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. Preclinical Studies Before testing any drug product candidates in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of the preclinical tests 18 must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after an IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. Clinical Trials Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator, generally a physician not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated in the trial. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Information about certain clinical trials, including clinical trial results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, clinical trial sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Disclosure of the results of these clinical trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the clinical trial was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3: • Phase 1 clinical trials generally involve a small number of healthy volunteers or disease-affected patients who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the product candidate. The primary purpose of these clinical trials is to assess the metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacologic action, side effect tolerability, safety of the product candidate, and, if possible, early evidence of effectiveness. • Phase 2 clinical trials generally involve studies in disease-affected patients to evaluate proof of concept and/or determine the dosing regimen(s) for subsequent investigations. At the same time, safety and further pharmacokinetic and 19 pharmacodynamic information is collected, possible adverse effects and safety risks are identified, and a preliminary evaluation of efficacy is conducted. • Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve a large number of patients at multiple sites and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product for its intended use, its safety in use and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. These Phases may overlap or be combined. For example, a Phase 1/2 clinical trial may contain both a dose-escalation stage and a dose expansion stage, the latter of which may confirm tolerability at the recommended dose for expansion in future clinical trials (as in traditional Phase 1 clinical trials) and provide insight into the anti-tumor effects of the investigational therapy in selected subpopulation(s). Typically, during the development of oncology therapies, all subjects enrolled in Phase 1 clinical trials are disease-affected patients and, as a result, considerably more information on clinical activity may be collected during such trials than during Phase 1 clinical trials for non-oncology therapies. A single Phase 3 or Phase 2 trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in rare instances to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness (generally subject to the requirement of additional post-approval studies). The manufacturer of an investigational drug in a phase 2 or 3 clinical trial for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access. Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and other types of clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated checkpoints based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the investigational medicines do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life. FDA Review Process After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the U.S. An NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be marketed in the United States. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), each NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. The applicant under an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee. 20 The FDA reviews each submitted NDA before it determines whether to file it and may request additional information. The FDA must make a decision on whether to file an NDA within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is filed, the FDA begins an in-depth review of an NDA. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of an NDA. Most applications for standard review drug products are reviewed within ten to twelve months; most applications for priority review drugs are reviewed in six to eight months. Priority review can be applied to drugs that the FDA determines may offer significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to marketed products or where no adequate therapy exists. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. The FDA does not always meet its goal dates for standard and priority timeframes for an NDA, and the review process can be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an outside advisory committee—typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts—for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also typically inspects clinical trial sites to ensure compliance with GCP requirements and the integrity of the data supporting safety and efficacy. After the FDA evaluates an NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter ("CRL"), generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application, such as additional clinical data, additional pivotal clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may resubmit an NDA addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, withdraw the application, engage in formal dispute resolution or request an opportunity for a hearing. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that an NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. As a potential condition of an NDA approval, the FDA may require a REMS to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks to patients. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals and elements to assure a product’s safe use ("ETASU"). An ETASU can include, but is not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing the product, dispensing the product only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient-specific registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. Moreover, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of an NDA supplement or, in some case, a new NDA, before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs. Orphan Drug Designation Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States. 21 Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the U.S. for that product, for that indication. During the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or in instances of drug supply issues. 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. Other benefits of orphan drug designation include tax credits for certain research and an exemption from the NDA user fee. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. Fast Track Designation Fast track designation may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of an investigational drug product may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a fast track drug concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. At the time of an NDA filing, the FDA will determine whether to grant priority review designation. Additionally, fast track designation may be withdrawn if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process. Breakthrough Therapy Designation Breakthrough therapy designation may be granted for products that are intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Under the breakthrough therapy program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that the FDA designate the candidate for a specific indication as a breakthrough therapy concurrent with, or after, the submission of an IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug product qualifies for breakthrough therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process, providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval, involving more senior staff in the review process, assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team and taking other steps to design the clinical studies in an efficient manner. Priority Review Priority review may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. 22 Accelerated Approval Accelerated approval may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and that generally provide a meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments. A product eligible for accelerated approval may be approved on the basis of either a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions or survives. The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long, and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large studies to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit. The accelerated approval pathway is contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence and, in some cases, the FDA may require that the trial be designed, initiated and/or fully enrolled prior to approval. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Pediatric Information Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act ("PREA"), an NDA or supplements to an NDA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, with certain exceptions. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act ("BPCA"), provides NDA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity—patent or nonpatent—for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers. Post-Approval Requirements Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in a manner consistent with the approved labeling. Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports are required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as phase 4 testing, REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality 23 control, drug manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMP after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the Agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMP. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered. Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: • Restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, suspension of the approval, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or a product recall; • Fines, warning or other enforcement-related letters or holds on post-approval clinical studies; • Refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals; • Product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or • Injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. The Hatch-Waxman Act Orange Book Listing Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch Waxman Amendments, NDA applicants are required to identify to the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s drug or approved method of using the drug. Upon approval of a drug, the applicant must update its listing of patents to the NDA in timely fashion and each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA"). An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredient(s), strength, route of administration, and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. An approved ANDA product is considered to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, pre-clinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved under the ANDA pathway are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug pursuant to each state’s laws on drug substitution. The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents identified for the reference listed drug in the Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify to each patent in one of the following ways: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. For patents listed that claim an approved method of use, under certain circumstances the ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a section viii statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or 24 carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents through a Paragraph IV certification, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA-holder and patentee(s) once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA (referred to as the “notice letter”). The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice letter. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months from the date the notice letter is received, expiration of the patent, the date of a settlement order or consent decree signed and entered by the court stating that the patent that is the subject of the certification is invalid or not infringed, or a decision in the patent case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant. The ANDA application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired. In some instances, an ANDA applicant may receive approval prior to expiration of certain non-patent exclusivity if the applicant seeks, and the FDA permits, the omission of such exclusivity-protected information from the ANDA prescribing information. Exclusivity Upon an NDA approval of a new chemical entity ("NCE"), which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA cannot receive any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug unless the application contains a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the application may be submitted one year prior to expiration of the NCE exclusivity. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA for a generic version of the drug may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period. Certain changes to an approved drug, such as the approval of a new indication, the approval of a new strength, and the approval of a new condition of use, are associated with a three-year period of exclusivity from the date of approval during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug that includes the change. In some instances, an ANDA applicant may receive approval prior to expiration of the three-year exclusivity if the applicant seeks, and the FDA permits, the omission of such exclusivity-protected information from the ANDA package insert. Patent Term Extension The Hatch Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. Patent term extension, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. After an NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for the extension. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase (the time between an IND application and an NDA submission) and all of the review phase (the time between an NDA submission and approval) up to a maximum of five years. The time can be reduced for any time the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. However, the USPTO may not grant an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than requested. 25 The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years, and only one patent can be extended. The application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent, and for patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the USPTO must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. Interim patent extensions are not available for a drug for which an NDA has not been submitted. Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement In the United States and in foreign markets, sales of pharmaceutical products depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, private managed care providers, health insurers and other organizations. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid in the United States, and commercial payors are critical to new product acceptance. There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, for example, principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private third-party payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for each of our product candidates will be made on a plan-by-plan basis. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Additionally, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical product candidates. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific product candidates on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. Outside the United States, the commercialization of therapeutics is generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has, and will continue to, put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as our product candidates. Other Healthcare Laws In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal laws have been applied to restrict certain general business and marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry in recent years. These laws include anti-kickback statutes, false claims statutes and other healthcare laws and regulations. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers, among others, on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are 26 drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation. Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibit any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim paid. This includes claims made to programs where the federal government reimburses, such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as programs where the federal government is a direct purchaser, such as when it purchases off the Federal Supply Schedule. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws. Additionally, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. Most states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and civil False Claims Act, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Other federal statutes pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse include the civil monetary penalties statute, which prohibits, among other things, the offer or payment of remuneration to a Medicaid or Medicare beneficiary that the offerer or payor knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary to order a receive a reimbursable item or service from a particular supplier, and the additional federal criminal statutes created by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises any money or property owned by or under the control of any healthcare benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation. Further, pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation (the “Affordable Care Act” or the “ACA”), CMS has issued a final rule that requires manufacturers of prescription drugs to collect and report information on certain payments or transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. The reports must be submitted on an annual basis. The reported data is made available in searchable form on a public website on an annual basis. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and its implementing regulations, imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, on covered entities, business associates and their covered subcontractors with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. In addition, several states now require prescription drug companies to report certain expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products and to report gifts and payments to individual healthcare practitioners in these states. Other states prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals. Still other states require the posting of information relating to clinical studies and their outcomes. Some states require the reporting of certain drug pricing information, including information pertaining to and justifying price increases. In addition, states such as California, Connecticut, Nevada and Massachusetts require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and/or marketing codes. Several additional states are considering similar proposals. Certain states and local jurisdictions also require the registration of pharmaceutical sales and medical representatives. Compliance with these laws is difficult and time consuming, and companies that do not comply with these state laws face civil penalties. 27 Efforts to ensure that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations involve substantial costs. If a drug company’s operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, it may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of its operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other federal or state government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, imprisonment, and reputational harm. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action for an alleged or suspected violation can cause a drug company to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business, even if such action is successfully defended. U.S. Healthcare Reform In the United States there have been, and continue to be, proposals by the federal government, state governments, regulators and third-party payors to control or manage the increased costs of health care and, more generally, to reform the U.S. healthcare system. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, (i) subjected therapeutic biologics to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars by creating a licensure framework for follow-on biologic products, (ii) proscribed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs and therapeutic biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, (iii) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, (iv) established annual nondeductible fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and therapeutic biologics, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs, (v) established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (now 70%) point of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs and therapeutic biologics to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs and therapeutic biologics to be covered under Medicare Part D, (vi) expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability, (vii) expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health program, (viii) created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research, and (ix) established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending. There have been judicial, executive brand, and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, to repeal or replace certain aspects, of the ACA. By way of example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the "Tax Act"), was enacted and included, among other things, a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” There have been subsequent challenges to the constitutionality of the ACA following the repeal of the individual mandate. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the individual mandate was repealed by Congress. In addition, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA 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 and creating a new manufacturer discount program. However, it is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such challenges will impact the ACA. Tempest 28 cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or the impact of potential legislation on its business. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted to reduce healthcare expenditures. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, was enacted which, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute will remain in effect through 2031, 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. Moreover, on January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. If federal spending is further reduced, anticipated budgetary shortfalls may also impact the ability of relevant agencies, such as the FDA or the National Institutes of Health to continue to function at current levels. Amounts allocated to federal grants and contracts may be reduced or eliminated. These reductions may also impact the ability of relevant agencies to timely review and approve research and development, manufacturing, and marketing activities, which may delay Tempest’s ability to develop, market and sell any products Tempest may develop. Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”), changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. While the MMA only applies to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, 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, 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, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” for such drugs and biologics under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates with respect to certain drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be 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 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. It is unclear whether this executive order or similar policy initiatives will be implemented in the future. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. 29 Additionally, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA authorization under an FDA expanded access program; however, manufacturers are not obligated to provide investigational new drug products under the current federal right to try law. Employees and Human Capital Resources As of December 31, 2022, we had 19 employees, including 12 holding Ph.D., M.D., JD, LL.M., and/or MBA degrees, our employees have established internal expertise in chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, pharmacology, toxicology, pre-clinical development, regulatory and quality, translational medicine, and early-to-late-stage clinical development, as well as finance, business development and strategic transactions. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We will continue to add experienced and talented scientists in areas, such as medicinal chemistry, that we believe are critical for the discovery of highly differentiated small-molecule compounds. Compensation and Benefits We consider a number of measures and objectives in managing our human capital assets, including, among others, employee engagement, development and training, talent acquisition and retention, employee safety and wellness, diversity and inclusion, and compensation and pay equity. We provide our employees with salaries and bonuses intended to be competitive for our industry, opportunities for equity ownership, development programs that enable continued learning and growth and a benefits package to promote well-being across all aspects of their lives, including health care, retirement planning and paid time off. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of equity-based compensation awards and cash-based compensation awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) We believe that a diverse workforce is important to our success and we are fundamentally committed to creating and maintaining a work environment in which employees are treated fairly, with dignity, decency, respect and in accordance with all applicable laws. We understand that varied perspectives lead to the best ideas and outcomes. We believe that by creating a workplace where every individual can feel welcome and valued, we will be better able to achieve our corporate objectives. All employees must adhere to a code of business conduct and ethics and our employee handbook, which combined, define standards for appropriate behavior. Our recruitment, hiring, development, training, compensation, and advancement is based on qualifications, performance, skills, and experience without regard to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, or ethnicity. People of color and those who are part of underrepresented groups in the biotech industry are encouraged to apply for open positions. Available Information Our internet website address is www.Tempesttx.com. In addition to the information about us and our subsidiaries contained in this Annual Report, information about us can be found on our website. Our website and information included in or linked to our website are not part of this Annual Report. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Additionally, the SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov. 30