What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Business

2023-03-31 compared with 2022-03-31 · 1414 added, 963 removed, 65 unchanged (97% of the section changed)

1 unchanged sentence

treatments for certain medical conditions.

Currently, two of our programs are focused on kidney disease that we believe have the potential

to offer medical benefit.

As we grow the Company and build our team, we intend to focus on identifying medical conditions within and outside

of kidney disease.

Our current development programs are focused on the development of two novel therapies:

Currently, two of our programs are focused on kidney disease, an area we believe we have the

potential to offer medical benefit.

As we grow the company and build our team, we intend to focus on identifying medical conditions within

and outside of kidney disease.

Our current development programs are focused on two novel therapies:

Renazorb™, for treatment of

hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease, and UNI 494, for treatment of acute kidney injury (AKI).

Renazorb and UNI 494

were initially developed by, and licensed to us from, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals (“Spectrum”) and Sphaera Pharmaceuticals, respectively.

hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis, and UNI 494, for treatment of acute kidney injury (AKI).

and UNI 494 were initially developed by and licensed to us from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals (“Spectrum”) and Sphaera Pharmaceuticals,

respectively.

Spectrum conducted a Phase 1 clinical trial with Renazorb in 2012, prior to the grant of our license in 2018.

Sphaera conceived, and performed

initial characterization of, various potential pro-drug linkers, including the initial patent application, and performed some initial

physiochemical characterization and preliminary animal pharmacokinetic studies.

As discussed herein, during 2020 and 2021 we have conducted

preclinical studies with UNI 494.

Sphaera conceived

and performed initial characterization of various potential pro-drug linkers, including the initial patent application, and performed

some initial physiochemical characterization and preliminary animal pharmacokinetic studies.

As discussed herein, during 2021 and 2022

we have conducted preclinical studies with UNI 494.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is the gradual loss

of kidney function that can get worse over time leading to lasting damage.

Our initial focus is on developing drugs and getting them approved

in the US, and then to partner with global biopharmaceutical companies in the rest of the world.

According to estimates by The Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2019, 37 million (approximately 15%) adults in the United States have CKD and, of these, approximately

2 million patients have CKD stage 3-5, and around 500 thousand patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have hyperphosphatemia.

the European Union (EU), around 20 million (approximately 8%) adults have CKD, more than 1 million CKD stage 3-5 patients, and approximately

180 thousand patients with ESRD have hyperphosphatemia.

The number of patients with ESRD in the US is increasing steadily and is projected

to reach between 971,000 and 1,259,000 in 2030.

AKI is a sudden episode of kidney failure or kidney

damage (within the first 90 days of injury).

Our initial focus is on developing drugs and getting them

approved in the U.S., and then to partner with global biopharmaceutical companies in the rest of the world.

According to the United States

Renal Data System (USRDS) 2022 Annual Data Report, 30 million (14%) of adults in the United States are estimated to have CKD and, of

these, approximately 13 million patients have advanced CKD (stage 3-5).

Approximately 550,000 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)

are on dialysis and of those, approximately 450,000 take phosphate binders to control hyperphosphatemia.

The number of patients with

ESRD in the U.S.

is increasing steadily and is projected to reach between 971,000 and 1,259,000 in 2030.

AKI is a sudden episode of kidney failure or

kidney damage (within the first 90 days of injury).

After 90 days, the patient is considered to have progressed into CKD.

AKI affects over 2

patients and costs the healthcare system over $9 billion per year.

AKI kills more than 300,000 patients per year in the U.S.

more than 2 million U.S.

patients and costs the healthcare system in excess of $9 billion per year.

AKI kills more than 300,000 patients

per year in the U.S.

and is caused by multiple etiologies.

Our business model is to license technologies

and drugs, and pursue development, regulatory approval, and commercialization of those products in global markets.

and drugs in order to pursue development, regulatory approval, and commercialization of those products in global markets.

Many biotechnology

2 unchanged sentences

team’s broad network, expertise in the biopharmaceutical industry, and successful track record gives us an advantage in identifying

and bringing these assets into our Company at an attractive price with limited upfront cost.

and bringing these assets into our company.

Our proprietary pipeline is comprised of our two product candidates

1 unchanged sentence

UNI-014 (Renazorb)

Renazorb Purchase Agreement

On September 20, 2018, we entered into an Assignment

and Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Renazorb Purchase Agreement”) with Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(“Spectrum”),

pursuant to which we purchased certain assets from Spectrum, including Spectrum’s right, title, interest in and intellectual property

related to Renazorb RZB 012, also known as RENALAN™ (“Renalan”) and RZB 014, also known as SPI 014 (“SPI”

and together with Renalan, the “Compounds”).

Pursuant to the Renazorb Purchase Agreement, in consideration for the Compounds,

we issued 313,663 shares of common stock to Spectrum.

Additionally, the Renazorb Purchase Agreement

provides that until the earlier of (i) 36 months from the first date on which our stock trades on a public market, or (ii) the date upon

which we attain a public market capitalization of $50,000,000 or greater, we are required to issue additional shares of our common stock

as may be needed to ensure Spectrum maintains a 4% ownership of our issued and outstanding common stock on a fully-diluted basis.

Fully-diluted

shares of common stock for purposes of the Renazorb Purchase Agreement assumes conversion of any security convertible into or exchangeable

or exercisable for common stock or any combination thereof, including any common stock reserved for issuance under a stock option plan,

restricted stock plan, or other equity incentive plan approved by the Board of Directors of the Company immediately following the issuance

of additional shares of our common stock (but prior to the issuance of any additional shares of common stock to Spectrum).

required to pay Spectrum 40% of all of our sublicense income for any sublicense granted to certain sublicensees during the first 12 months

after the Closing Date (as that term is defined in the Renazorb Purchase Agreement) and 20% of all other sublicense income.

obligations to Spectrum will expire on the twentieth (20 th ) anniversary of the Closing Date of the Renazorb Purchase Agreement.

Disease overview:

Hyperphosphatemia

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is the gradual loss of kidney function

that can get worse over time leading to lasting damage.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is the gradual loss

of kidney function that can get worse over time leading to lasting damage.

The stages of chronic kidney disease are shown below in table

3 unchanged sentences

fluid build-up, anemia, bone disease, and heart disease.

Hyperphosphatemia is an electrolyte disorder in which untreated elevated phosphate

Hyperphosphatemia is an electrolyte disorder in which untreated elevated phosphorus

levels in the blood lead to cardiovascular complications and vascular calcification.

According to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome

(KDIGO) guidelines, hyperphosphatemia is defined as an abnormally high serum phosphate concentration >1.46 mmol/L.

In healthy people,

phosphate levels are maintained as phosphate is absorbed from food and excreted in the urine and feces.

According to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes

(KDIGO) guidelines, hyperphosphatemia is defined as an abnormally high serum phosphorus concentration >4.5 mg/dL In healthy people,

phosphorus levels are maintained as phosphate is absorbed from food and excreted in the urine and feces.

In people with CKD, not enough

phosphate is excreted, leading to elevated levels of phosphate in the blood.

phosphate is excreted, leading to elevated levels of phosphorus in the blood.

In CKD, hyperphosphatemia is caused by a chronic dysregulation

of phosphates as a result of progressive kidney damage.

According to a 2009 paper authored by Covic, hyperphosphatemia is associated with

increased risk of cardiovascular disease, metabolic bone disease, and all-cause mortality.

According to a study completed by Palmer in

2011, it is estimated that all-cause mortality is increased by 18% for every 1 mg/dL increase in serum phosphate concentration.

Hyperphosphatemia

is a major cause of morbidity in CKD patients, increasing the economic and clinical burden on patients and the health system.

According to Lederer in 2018, hyperphosphatemia occurs in at least

70% of patients with advanced (stage 5) CKD, which equates to approximately 500,000 patients.

According to the 2019 National Chronic Kidney

Disease Fact Sheet (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019), it is estimated that 15% of US adults (i.e.

approximately 37 million

people) have CKD.

Furthermore, in a paper published by McCullough in 2019, the number of patients in the US with ESRD is increasing steadily

of serum phosphorus levels as a result of progressive kidney damage.

According to a 2009 paper authored by Covic, hyperphosphatemia is

associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, metabolic bone disease, and all-cause mortality.

According to a study completed

by Palmer in 2011, it is estimated that all-cause mortality is increased by 18% for every 1 mg/dL increase in serum phosphorus concentration.

Hyperphosphatemia is also a major cause of morbidity in CKD patients, which increases the economic and clinical burden on patients and

the health system and results in Medicare expenditures of $70 billion in the U.S.

According to the 2022 United States Renal Data

System (USRDS), it is estimated that 14% of U.S.

adults (approximately 31 million people) have CKD.

Most patients with stage 5 CKD either

undergo kidney transplant or go on dialysis.

The 2022 USRDS annual report indicates that there were 557,838 prevalent dialysis patients

in 2020 (the latest reported year).

The prevalent U.S.

dialysis population has grown at an average yearly rate of 3.5% over the past

Furthermore, in a paper published by McCullough in 2019, the number of patients in the U.S.

with ESRD is increasing steadily

and is projected to reach between 971,000 and 1,259,000 in 2030.

treatment of hyperphosphatemia

The treatment goal for patients with hyperphosphatemia is focused on

controlling the level of phosphate in the body.

Current Kidney Disease:

Improving Global Outcomes, or KDIGO, guidelines recommend three

main strategies for managing hyperphosphatemia:

In 2020, the number of prevalent dialysis patients declined due to an

increased death rate of dialysis patients as a consequence of COVID-19.

Current treatment of hyperphosphatemia

The treatment goal for patients with hyperphosphatemia

is focused on controlling the level of phosphate in the body.

KDIGO guidelines recommend three main strategies for managing hyperphosphatemia:

diet restrictions, phosphate binders, and dialysis, as shown in figure 1 below.

KDIGO guidelines recommend 3 main strategies.

While KDIGO guidelines support the treatment of hyperphosphatemia with

phosphate binders in patients with CKD, they do not recommend one agent over another.

Examples of different types of phosphate binders

are shown in figure 2 below.

Phosphate Binders

This means that physicians prescribe their medication of choice, usually

based on clinical and patient factors.

In CKD patients on dialysis, hyperphosphatemia is most commonly treated with non-calcium phosphate

Unmet Medical Need for Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia

The mechanism of action and what we believe to be the advantages and

disadvantages of various phosphate binders are shown below.

While KDIGO guidelines support the treatment

of hyperphosphatemia with phosphate binders in patients with CKD, with the exception of calcium-based binders, they do not recommend

one agent over another.

This means that physicians prescribe their medication of choice, usually based on clinical and patient factors.

Utilization of calcium-based binders is discouraged by the most recent KDOQI/KDIGO guidelines due to mounting clinical evidence that

excess calcium load from calcium-based phosphate binder is associated with hypercalcemia and cardiovascular calcification which has been

associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality.

According to data from the Dialysis Outcomes

and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) in 2021, 82% of U.S.

dialysis patients were prescribed phosphate binders, which equates to approximately

450,000 patients.

Unmet Medical Need in the Management of Hyperphosphatemia

The mechanism of action and what we believe to

be the advantages and disadvantages of various phosphate binders are shown below.

Adapted from Covic and Rastogi, 2013.

Despite the commercial availability of the six

phosphate binders in the table above, 75% of U.S.

dialysis patients fail to achieve the serum phosphorus target established by the KDIGO

Moreover, serum phosphorus outcomes are trending downward—underscoring the need for newer, more effective treatment

In 2005, Unruh, ML published a paper that showed

poor adherence to treatment is common in patients with ESRD and has been associated with an increased risk of mortality.

poor adherence to phosphate binder therapy has been associated with failure to adequately control serum phosphorus concentrations as shown

in a publication by Arenas, MD and others in 2010.

Results from a study of 233 patients on maintenance dialysis from three different dialysis

units in the US showed that patients took a mean of 11 ± 4 medications with a median daily pill intake of 19 as shown by Chiu,

Phosphate binders accounted for 49 ± 19% of the total pill burden, with a median pill count of 9.

Only 38% of patients

in this study were adherent to their prescribed phosphate binder therapy and adherence decreased significantly with increased pill count

also shown by Chiu, YW in 2009 publication.

Potential strategies to improve adherence to phosphate

binders in patients with ESRD include:

(i) a reduction in pill size and number, (ii) improvement of palatability, and (iii) a reduction

in associated adverse effects as published in a study by Covic and Rastogi in 2013.

poor adherence to phosphate binder therapy has been associated with failure to adequately control serum phosphorus concentrations as

shown in a publication by Arenas, MD and others in 2010.

Results from a study of 233 patients on maintenance dialysis from three different

dialysis units in the U.S.

showed that patients took a mean of 11 ± 4 medications with a median daily pill intake of 19 as shown

by Chiu, YW in 2009.

Phosphate binders accounted for nearly 50% of the total pill burden, with a median daily pill count of nine.

38% of patients in this study reported that they were adherent to their prescribed phosphate binder therapy and adherence decreased significantly

with increased pill count.

Potential strategies to improve adherence to

phosphate binders in patients with ESRD include:

(i) a reduction in pill size and number, (ii) improvement of palatability, and (iii)

a reduction in associated adverse effects as published in a study by Covic and Rastogi in 2013.

Therefore, we believe there is a current need

for better phosphate binders that have high and rapid phosphate binding, alongside a reduced pill burden for better medication compliance.

Background on Renazorb

Renazorb (lanthanum dioxycarbonate) is a second-generation

phosphate binding agent utilizing proprietary nanoparticle technology for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients.

2012 a Phase 1 single-center clinical trial was completed in the United States with Renazorb studying 32 healthy volunteers.

Four sequential

dose cohorts of 8 subjects each (6 active and 2 placebo) received Renazorb at 1500, 3000, 4500, or 6000 mg/day, taken orally in 3 divided

doses within 15 min after meals, for five consecutive days.

The primary endpoint of the study was the evaluation of safety, and the secondary

endpoint was the phosphate binding capacity of Renazorb as judged by the level of phosphorus in feces and urine.

We believe the study

indicated that Renazorb was minimally absorbed to the systemic circulation and was well-tolerated at doses up to 6000 mg/day.

significantly reduced urine phosphate excretion and significantly increased fecal phosphate excretion at doses at and above 3000 mg/day.

The mean overall change in phosphorus from baseline in both urine and feces, across all treatment groups, showed a dose-response trend

that was statistically significant (p<0.0001 and p=0.0004, respectively).

The mean reduction in urine phosphorus excretion was not

significant at 1500 mg/day (p=0.3676), but was significant at doses of 3000 (p=0.0004), 4500 (p<0.0001), and 6000 (p=0.0001) mg/day.

The mean increase in fecal phosphorus excretion was significant at doses of 1500 (p=0.0358), 3000 (p=0.0006), 4500 (p=0.0026), and 6000

(p<0.0001) mg/day.

The doses resulted in no serious adverse events (SAEs) and all patients completed the study.

Renazorb Purchase Agreement

On September 20, 2018, we entered into an Assignment and Asset Purchase

Agreement (the “Renazorb Purchase Agreement”) with Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(“Spectrum”), pursuant to which

we purchased certain assets from Spectrum, including Spectrum’s right, title, interest in and intellectual property related to Renazorb

RZB 012, also known as RENALAN™ (“Renalan”) and RZB 014, also known as SPI 014 (“SPI” and together with

Renalan, the “Compounds”).

Pursuant to the Renazorb Purchase Agreement, in consideration for the Compounds, we issued 313,663

shares of common stock to Spectrum.

Additionally,

the Renazorb Purchase Agreement provides that until the earlier of (i) 36 months from the first date on which our stock trades on a public

market, or (ii) the date upon which we attain a public market capitalization of $50,000,000 or greater, we are required to issue additional

shares of our common stock as may be needed to ensure Spectrum maintains a 4% ownership of our issued and outstanding common stock on

a fully-diluted basis.

Fully-diluted shares of common stock for purposes of the Renazorb Purchase Agreement assumes conversion of any

security convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for common stock or any combination thereof, including any common stock reserved

for issuance under a stock option plan, restricted stock plan, or other equity incentive plan approved by the Board of Directors of the

Company immediately following the issuance of additional shares of our common stock (but prior to the issuance of any additional shares

of common stock to Spectrum).

We are also required to pay Spectrum 40% of all of our sublicense income for any sublicense granted to

certain sublicensees during the first 12 months after the Closing Date (as that term is defined in the Renazorb Purchase Agreement) and

20% of all other sublicense income.

Our payment obligations to Spectrum will expire on the twentieth (20 th ) anniversary of

the Closing Date of the Renazorb Purchase Agreement.

Mechanism of Action

for better phosphate binders with high phosphate binding capacity, enabling a reduced pill burden for better medication compliance.

Development of Renazorb

Renazorb (lanthanum dioxycarbonate) is an investigational

phosphate binding agent utilizing proprietary nanoparticle technology for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients on dialysis.

Renazorb Mechanism of Action

Renazorb binds to phosphates and forms an insoluble

lanthanum phosphate complex which is then excreted via the feces.

This results in reduction of serum phosphate levels.

In rat studies, Renazorb exhibited comparable binding kinetics compared

to lanthanum carbonate (Fosrenol).

This was evident from comparable reduction in the phosphate level in urine of rats following administration

of equivalent doses of lanthanum through Renazorb (i.e.

LDC or lanthanum dioxycarbonate) vs lanthanum dioxycarbonate tetrahydrate (i.e,

LCTH or Fosrenol) (see Fig 3).

Urine phosphate levels in rats following comparable lanthanum dosing through Renazorb (LDC) or Fosrenol (LCTH)

Animal studies to evaluate the potential efficacy of Renazorb versus

sevelamer hydrochloride (Renagel) in rats and dogs demonstrated significant lowering of phosphate levels in both urine and serum.

toxicology studies no unexpected toxicity was found and systemic absorption was extremely low that is consistent with Fosrenol.

This results in reduction of serum phosphorus levels.

In rat studies, Renazorb exhibited comparable

reduction in the urine phosphorus excretion following administration of a lower dose of drug product (0.40g) vs a higher dose (0.57g)

of Fosrenol® (lanthanum carbonate tetrahydrate).

While differing in the mass of drug product, each dose contained comparable amounts

of the active moiety (elemental lanthanum).

In the same study, at equivalent doses, Renazorb was superior to sevelamer (the most commonly

used phosphate binder) in reducing urine phosphorus excretion (see Fig 2).

Urine phosphate levels in rats following comparable dosing

of Renazorb, Fosrenol, or Sevelamer

In animal toxicology studies no unexpected toxicity

was found and systemic absorption was extremely low, which is consistent with similar studies conducted with Fosrenol.

The chemical design of Renazorb allows for smaller

tablet size and fewer pills versus currently available phosphate binder alternatives, specifically with a dosing regimen of only one

tablet per meal.

The tablet is designed to disintegrate in the stomach after swallowing and disperse the product in a short period of

time at a pH ≥3.0.

tablet size and fewer pills compared with currently available phosphate binder alternatives, specifically with a dosing regimen of only

one tablet per meal.

The Renazorb tablet is designed to disintegrate in the stomach after swallowing and disperse the product in a short

period of time at a pH ≥3.0.

Clinical Trial Experience

In September 2012 a Phase 1 single-center clinical trial was completed

in the United States with Renazorb studying 32 healthy volunteers.

Four sequential dose cohorts of 8 subjects each (6 actives and 2 placeboes)

received Renazorb at 1500, 3000, 4500, or 6000 mg/day, taken orally in 3 divided doses within 15 min after meals, for five consecutive

The primary endpoint of the study was the evaluation of safety, and the secondary endpoint was the phosphate binding capacity of

Renazorb as judged by the level of phosphorus in feces and urine.

We believe the study indicated that Renazorb was minimally absorbed

to the systemic circulation and was well-tolerated at doses up to 6000 mg/day.

Renazorb significantly reduced urine phosphate excretion

and significantly increased fecal phosphate excretion at doses at and above 3000 mg/day.

The mean overall change in phosphorus from

baseline in both urine and feces, across all treatment groups, showed a dose-response trend that was statistically significant (p<0.0001

and p=0.0004, respectively).

The mean reduction in urine phosphorus excretion was not significant at 1500 mg/day (p=0.3676), but was significant

at 3000 (p=0.0004), 4500 (p<0.0001), and 6000 (p=0.0001) mg/day, as shown in the figure below.

The mean increase in fecal phosphorus excretion

was significant at 1500 (p=0.0358), 3000 (p=0.0006), 4500 (p=0.0026), and 6000 (p<0.0001) mg/day.

The doses resulted in no serious

adverse events (SAEs) and all patients completed the study.

Potential advantages of Renazorb

Renazorb is a phosphate binder for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia

in patients with CKD and is intended to be administered as a tablet that will be swallowed whole at mealtimes.

CKD patients typically

have co-morbidities, which often require them to be on strict pill schedules.

Current phosphate binder products such as Fosrenol, Renagel/Renvela

and Phoslo involve patients needing to take multiple and/or larger pills (on average, 9 pills/day), in addition to other, non-phosphate

binder pills they sometimes need to take, resulting in poor adherence to the prescribed drug therapy (Figure 4 below).

Lower molecular

weight and no water of hydration with Renazorb as compared with Fosrenol allows Renazorb to be dosed in smaller mass.

In this regard,

we believe that the combined effect of smaller pill size, lower number of pills, and improved palatability with Renazorb versus currently

available phosphate binders is likely to lead to improved patient compliance and more effective disease management.

Size comparisons of different phosphate binders

Market Potential

The worldwide market for hyperphosphatemia agents

is estimated at ~$2.5 billion growing at a 5.3% CAGR (Fortune Business Insights, Hyperphosphatemia Treatment Market, 2021-2028 ).

According to a study conducted by Syneos Health for the Company, based on the market data, the total US market makes up over $1 billion

of the that total.

Based on the available data on overall efficacy, safety and compliance,

we believe that Renazorb is well-positioned to become a product of choice in the multi-billion phosphate binder market.

In September 2012 a Phase 1 single-center clinical

trial evaluating Renazorb in 32 healthy volunteers was completed in the United States.

Four sequential dose cohorts of 8 subjects each

(6 actives and 2 placebos) received Renazorb at 1500, 3000, 4500, or 6000 mg/day, taken orally in 3 divided doses within 15 minutes after

meals, for five consecutive days.

The primary endpoint of the study was the evaluation of safety, and the secondary endpoint was the

phosphate binding capacity of Renazorb as judged by the level of phosphorus in feces and urine.

We believe the study indicated

that Renazorb was minimally absorbed to the systemic circulation and was well-tolerated at doses up to 6000 mg/day.

Renazorb significantly

reduced urine phosphate excretion and significantly increased fecal phosphate excretion at doses at and above 3000 mg/day.

mean overall change in phosphorus from baseline in both urine and feces, across all treatment groups, showed a dose-response trend that

was statistically significant (p<0.0001 and p=0.0004, respectively).

The mean reduction in urine phosphorus excretion was not significant

at 1500 mg/day (p=0.3676), but was significant at 3000 (p=0.0004), 4500 (p<0.0001), and 6000 (p=0.0001) mg/day, as shown in the figure

Daily urine phosphate reduction

Regulatory Strategy for Renazorb

Feedback from the FDA

We received additional guidance on the regulatory

pathway for Renazorb from the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following a Type C meeting in March 2022, in which the FDA confirmed

that a single clinical bioequivalence study in healthy volunteers, together with the previously agreed-upon 6-month mouse toxicology

study can support the New Drug Application (NDA) filing of Renazorb through a 505(b)(2) pathway.

We reached an agreement with the FDA on the clinical

study design including the doses of Renazorb and Fosrenol, sample size and the primary endpoints of the bioequivalence study.

confirmed that no additional clinical studies would be required for the NDA application.

BE Study Description

We conducted a randomized, open label, two-way

crossover BE study to establish pharmacodynamic (PD) bioequivalence between Renazorb and Fosrenol.

The primary objective of the study

was to demonstrate PD equivalence of orally administered Renazorb 1000 mg three-times daily (TID) to orally administered Fosrenol 1000

mg TID in healthy subjects, and the secondary objective was to compare the safety and tolerability of UNI-014 versus Fosrenol in healthy

The study design, including the dose, primary endpoint and the sample size was reviewed by the Agency prior to the initiation

of the study.

The primary outcome measure was least squares (LS) mean change in urinary phosphorous excretion (in mg/day) from baseline

to the evaluation period.

The evaluation period was defined as the approximately 72-hour urine collection period starting on Day 1 and

ending on Day 4.

Baseline was defined as the approximately 48-hour urine collection period starting on Day -2 and ending on Day 1.

equivalence was to be claimed if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the primary PD variable for UNI-014 was completely contained within

the reference interval, which was defined as ±20% of the LS mean of the primary PD variable for lanthanum carbonate.

change from Baseline for UNI-014 (-320.4 mg/day) was similar to the LS mean change from Baseline for Fosrenol (-324.0 mg/day).

90% CI for the LS mean was (-45.88, 53.16), which is well within the acceptance range of (-64.80, 64,80) ( Table 3 ).

It was concluded

that UNI-014 was bioequivalent to Fosrenol.

Primary outcome data is presented

in the table below.

Table 3 Summary of Mean

Change in Urinary Phosphorus Excretion (mg/day)

Evaluation Period

Change from Baseline

LS Mean Change

90% Confidence Interval for the LS mean (Test-Reference)

(-45.88, 53.16)

Acceptance Range

(-64.80, 64.799)

Manufacturing

8 unchanged sentences

According to the terms of the

agreement Unicycive will pay the vendor $2 million in the first calendar year when the net revenue reaches $10 million from sales of Renazorb

following its approval by the FDA and commercial supply of the product by the vendor (First Payment).

Thereafter, we will pay $2 million

per year for four consecutive years, after the first year’s payment, for the total payments of $10 million, provided all commercial

supplies are continued to be manufactured and supplied by the vendor.

Unicycive is not obligated to make any payments to the vendor until

FDA approval of the product is obtained and commercial revenue is generated.

Regulatory Strategy for Renazorb

Feedback from the FDA

We received additional guidance on the regulatory

pathway for Renazorb from the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following a Type C meeting in March 2022, in which the Agency confirmed

that a single clinical bioequivalence study in healthy volunteers, together with the previously agreed-upon 6-month mouse toxicology study

can support the New Drug Application (NDA) filing of Renazorb through a 505(b)(2) pathway.

We reached an agreement with the Agency on the

clinical study design including the dose of Renazorb and Fosrenol, sample size and the primary endpoints of the bioequivalence study.

The Agency confirmed that no additional clinical studies would be required for the NDA application.

BE Study Description

Based on guidance from the FDA, we are initiating a randomized, open

label, two-way crossover BE study to establish pharmacodynamic bioequivalence between Renazorb and Fosrenol.

The study will enroll 32

individuals per treatment sequence for a total of 64 evaluable subjects.

An adequate number of subjects will be screened and randomized

in order to get 64 evaluable subjects into the study.

The primary endpoint of the study is LS mean change in urinary phosphate excretion

from baseline to the evaluation period.

The study will consist of a screening period, 2 dosing periods, a washout period, and a follow-up

The study design is presented in the diagram below:

We believe that our continued collaborative interactions with the FDA

will serve us well to be able to file our NDA.

Activities in support of each of the requirements recommended by FDA are underway.

to hold additional discussions with FDA during the second half of 2022 to confirm their concurrence with our dataset and NDA submission

strategy with the goal to file NDA by the end of 2022 or early 2023.

agreement, following Renazorb approval by the FDA, Unicycive will pay the vendor $2 million in the first calendar year when the net revenue

reaches $10 million from sales of Renazorb and commercial supply of the product by the vendor (First Payment).

Thereafter, we will pay

$2 million per year for four consecutive years, after the first year’s payment, for the total payments of $10 million, provided

all commercial supplies are continued to be manufactured and supplied by the vendor.

Unicycive is not obligated to make any payments

to the vendor until FDA approval of the product is obtained and commercial revenue is generated.

Commercial Strategy for Renazorb

The worldwide market for hyperphosphatemia agents

is estimated at ~$2.5 billion and is growing at a 5.3% CAGR (Fortune Business Insights, Hyperphosphatemia Treatment Market, 2021-2028 ).

According to a study conducted by Syneos Health for the Company, the U.S.

market makes up over $1 billion of that total.

We own commercial

rights to Renazorb globally.

market, we intend to maintain optionality by pursuing 3 potential go-to-market models in parallel.

We believe that this is the best strategy to maximize both the clinical value of the Renazorb asset for patients and the economic value

of the asset to our investors.

Launch Renazorb in the U.S.

market ourselves by building out a specialty commercial operation to

address the highly concentrated nephrology prescription market.

Executive management of the company has considerable product launch

experience in the nephrology space with specific working knowledge of the hyperphosphatemia market.

While there are ~10,000 prescribers

of phosphate binders, ~2,500 prescribers are responsible for over half of the ~2.5 million prescriptions written annually.

that we can efficiently create demand for Renazorb within the most productive segments of the market with a relatively small salesforce,

while addressing the broader segments of prescribers through non-personal and digital promotion tactics.

Out-license and/or co-promote Renazorb

with an established biopharma company that has an existing commercial infrastructure in the

renal disease space.

Out-license rights or enter into distribution agreement(s) with dialysis organization(s) for the

commercialization of Renazorb.

Collaboration Partners

In July of 2022, we entered into an agreement

granting exclusive rights to develop, market and commercialize Renazorb (lanthanum dioxycarbonate) to Lee’s Pharmaceutical (HK)

in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and certain other Asian markets.

Under the terms

of the agreement, Lee’s Pharm will be responsible for development, registration filing and approval for Renazorb in the licensed

In addition, Lee’s Pharm will have sole responsibility for the importation of the drug product from Unicycive and

for the costs of commercialization of Renazorb in the licensed territories.

We received an upfront payment of $1.0 million upon signature

and may receive up to $1.0 million in milestone payments upon product launch in China and will be eligible for tiered royalties upon

achievement of prespecified regulatory and commercial achievements.

In February of 2023, we entered into an exclusive

license agreement with Lotus Pharmaceutical for the development and commercialization of Renazorb in the Republic of Korea.

terms of the agreement, Lotus will be responsible for development, registration filing and approval of Renazorb in the Republic of Korea.

In addition, Lotus will have sole responsibility for the importation of the drug product from Unicycive and for the costs of commercialization

of Renazorb in the Republic of Korea.

We received an upfront payment of $750,000 and may receive up to $4.45 million in milestone payments

and tiered royalties upon achievement of prespecified regulatory and commercial achievements.

We will continue to seek licensing partners for

Renazorb in other territories outside the U.S.

(i.e., Europe, Japan, Canada, South America, and the Middle East.)

opportunity for Renazorb

Renazorb is a phosphate binder for the treatment

of hyperphosphatemia in patients with CKD on dialysis and is intended to be administered as a tablet that will be swallowed whole at

CKD patients typically have co-morbidities, which often require them to be on strict pill schedules.

Current phosphate binder

products such as Renvela ® , Calcium Acetate, Auryxia ® , Velphoro ® , and Fosrenol involve patients

needing to take large numbers and/or large sized, chewable pills each day, which often results in poor adherence to the prescribed drug

therapy (Figure 4 below).

By virtue of its novel nanoparticle technology, Renazorb leverages the high phosphate binding potency of lanthanum

in a palatable dose form that has the potential to substantially reduce the pill burden volume for patients.

In this regard, we believe

that the combined effect of smaller pill size, lower number of pills, and improved palatability with Renazorb compared with currently

available phosphate binders is likely to lead to improved patient compliance/adherence and more effective disease management.

Average daily dose of phosphate binder

therapies from www.dailymed.nlm.nih.gov.

Product images are proportionally sized.

Tenapanor (Ardelyx):

A Potential New Hyperphosphatemia

Market Player

Tenapanor is a new oral treatment for hyperphosphatemia

that utilizes a novel mechanism of action that inhibits paracellular transport of phosphorus into the bloodstream.

Ardelyx filed an NDA

for tenapanor with the FDA in June of 2020.

In July of 2021, Ardelyx received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the

FDA’s Division of Cardiology and Nephrology.

According to the CRL, the Division characterized the treatment effect of tenapanor

as “small and of unclear clinical significance.” Ardelyx appealed FDA’s decision and ultimately was granted an Advisory

Committee meeting in November of 2022, where committee members voted in favor of approving tenapanor (9 to 4 in favor of approving tenapanor

as monotherapy and 10 to 2 in favor of its approval in combination with phosphate binders).

Ardelyx is in discussions with FDA about

the nature of a potential approval of tenapanor and expects that approval in the second half of 2023.

While we can’t predict the outcome of these

negotiations, we believe that given the modest treatment effect of tenapanor that, regardless of the scope of the indication, the clinical

utilization of tenapanor will be predominantly in combination with phosphate binders.

In FDA Advisory Committee briefing documents, the

efficacy of tenapanor in lowering serum phosphorus levels in dialysis patients in an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was 0.70mg/dL.

comparison, in the same document FDA summarized the efficacy of lanthanum carbonate as resulting in a reduction in serum phosphorus of

2.0mg/dL in a comparable ITT analysis of clinical data.

Based on this FDA commentary, we would expect Renazorb to be substantially more

effective than tenapanor when used as monotherapy.

Similar to Renazorb, one of the key features of tenapanor’s value proposition

is its low pill burden.

For this reason, we believe that Renazorb may be the most logical phosphate binder to combine with tenapanor

making the two potential new medicines more complimentary than competitive as it would leverage two distinct mechanisms of action to

control phosphorus with a much lower pill burden than the current standard of care.

Changing Access and Reimbursement Environment

According to the most recent ESRD PPS “Final

Rule” published for 2023, drugs for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia for Medicare beneficiaries, which are currently provided

by Medicare Part D insurers are scheduled to be included into the dialysis bundle in 2025 and will be paid for separately by CMS through

a Transitional Drug Add-On Payment Adjustment (TDAPA) program for a minimum of 2 years.

In the 2023 Final Rule, CMS stated, “We

have seen that incorporating Medicare Part D drugs into the ESRD PPS has had a significant positive effect of expanding access to such

drugs for beneficiaries who do not have Medicare Part D coverage.” (federalregister.gov/d/2022-13449).

We believe that the

timing of this change coincides with our anticipated launch timing of Renazorb and could provide for a more rapid launch uptake and competitive

pricing advantages.

Disease overview:

acute kidney injury (AKI)

Acute kidney injury (AKI) — a loose collection

of syndromes characterized by a sudden decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) — is estimated to affect 2–3

people per 1,000 individuals in the United States as shown in a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)

by Kellum, JA in 2012.

AKI is a serious condition characterized by a sudden decline in kidney function that can lead to kidney

AKI, and CKD can form a continuum (see figure below) whereby initial kidney injury can lead to persistent renal injury, eventually

leading to CKD as shown in a 2017 study published by Chawla, LS in Nature Reviews Nephrology.

is defined as an abrupt decrease in kidney function occurring over 7 days or less, whereas CKD is defined by the persistence of kidney

disease for a period of >90 days.

AKD describes acute or subacute damage and/or loss of kidney function for a duration of between

7 and 90 days after exposure to an AKI initiating event (Figure 6).

Adapted from Nature Review-Nephrology;

Chawla LS et al.

In the United States, approximately 1% of patients

admitted to hospitals have AKI at the time of admission.

The estimated incidence rate of AKI during hospitalization is 2-5%.

within 30 days postoperatively in approximately 1% of general surgery cases as shown in a paper by Kheterpal S in Journal Anesthesiology

and arises in up to 67% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients as published in a paper by Goldberg R, 2008 in Advances in Chronic

Kidney Disease.

In recipients of solitary kidney transplants, 21% developed AKI within the first 6 months after transplantation as shown

in a paper published by Panek R in 2016 in Clinical Transplantation.

In a prospective national cohort study that used

an electronic AKI alert, the incidence of AKI was 577 per 100,000 population.

Community-acquired AKI accounted for 49.3% of all incidence

episodes, and 42% occurred in the context of pre-existing chronic kidney disease.

The 90-day mortality rate was 25.6%, and 23.7% of episodes

progressed to a higher AKI stage as published by Holmes J et al.

in Clinical Journal of American Society of Nephrology in 2016.

The KDIGO criteria for AKI are shown below in Table 3.

a study by Susantitaphong et al in 2013, using the KDIGO definition, an estimated 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 3 children worldwide experience

AKI during a hospital episode of care.

KDIGO criteria for AKI

The incidence of AKI varies among different patient

populations and is shown below in Table 4.

A 2018 study by Pavkov reported that the total number of hospitalizations with AKI increased

from 953,926 in 2000 to 1,823,054 in 2006 and to 3,959,560 in 2014.

Among persons with diabetes, AKI hospitalizations increased by 139%,

from 23.1 to 55.3 per 1,000 persons and by 230% among persons without diabetes, from 3.5 to 11.7 per 1,000 persons (both p<0.001).

Hospital-acquired

AKI is linked to 3 main areas:

sepsis, procedures, and drug toxicity as shown below in Table 4.

Adapted from Hoste et al.

treatment of acute kidney injury

Treatment options for AKI include continuous renal replacement therapy,

renal transplant, and dialysis.

In a majority of cases the damage to the kidney is irreversible, and the patient needs to have a renal

transplant or be on dialysis for life.

There are no approved medicines to treat AKI;

there is therefore a high unmet medical need.

approved, UNI 494 (a patented pro-drug of nicorandil) has the potential to be a first-in-class drug for the treatment of AKI.

on nicorandil

marketed in such products as Ikorel and Dancor, is indicated for the treatment of chronic stable angina pectoris.

It is not currently

approved in the United States but has been approved for use in Australia, the United Kingdom and most of Europe, and in India, Japan,

South Korea, and Taiwan.

Nicorandil is a dual-action potassium channel opener that relaxes vascular smooth muscle through membrane hyperpolarization

via increased transmembrane potassium conductance and increased intracellular concentration of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (GMP).

It is shown to dilate normal and stenotic coronary arteries and reduces both ventricular preload and afterload.

in acute kidney injury

kidney has one of the highest mitochondrial densities in the body.

Both acute and chronic kidney disease is associated with mitochondrial

loss and impaired replacement, which subsequently results in increased oxidative damage and cellular injury.

The diagram below in Figure

7 (Che R, 2014) shows how mitochondrial dysfunction can lead to kidney disease.

Mitochondria Dysfunction

Since mitochondrial dysfunction is an important factor in the pathogenesis

of AKI, the mitochondria have emerged as a therapeutic target for treatment as published in a study by Ishimoto Y in 2016 in Journal Nephrology

Dialysis Transplantation.

In preclinical studies, nicorandil has been shown to improve mitochondrial function by blocking the opening

of mitochondrial permeability transition pores (MPTP) and by stabilizing mitochondria against oxidative stress as published by Afzal,

M in 2016 in Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology.

8 below shows the potential mechanisms of how nicorandil can improve mitochondrial function in renal disease.

has been reported to have a potential protective effect in the kidneys in nonclinical (Shiraishi 2014, Tamura 2012, Tanabe 2012) and

human studies (Zhan 2018, Ma 2018).

Further, no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters of nicorandil have been observed

in patients with normal renal function as compared to those with impaired renal function (Molinaro 1992).

In animal studies, nicorandil has demonstrated efficacy in multiple

standard models of kidney disease (see Table 5).

Notably, these effects occur in a blood pressure-independent manner, indicating that

these beneficial effects are not simply a result of decreasing pressure-mediated kidney damage, but a direct beneficial effect on the

Efficacy of nicorandil in standard models of kidney disease

of Nicorandil

these promising results, development of nicorandil for use in acute kidney injury has not been successfully pursued to date.

possesses at least two features that may limit its use in this clinical setting.

First, nicorandil has a short half-life in humans of

approximately 1 hour, which results in the need to dose nicorandil multiple times per day to achieve sustained blood levels.

nicorandil is well tolerated by most patients, with less than 10% of patients reporting side-effects after 30 days of treatment, and

roughly 70% remaining on nicorandil at one year.

Similar to nitrates, headache is the most common side effect to nicorandil, occurring

in roughly one third of patients.

Other relatively common side effects are:

dizziness, flushing, malaise and gastro-intestinal upset.

However, nicorandil has been associated with rare but serious ulcerations in the gastrointestinal tract.

The chance of this rare but

potentially severe side effect increases with higher doses and long term use of this drug, and heals after drug withdrawal.

population-based study of this drug’s association with GI ulceration or perforation has been reported.

This study, based on more

than 600,000 randomly selected patients, found a 43% increase in the risk of GI ulceration and a 60% increase in the risk of GI perforation.

This effect appears dose-dependent and limits the maximum labeled dose of nicorandil in Europe.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is defined as a sudden

loss of kidney function that is diagnosed by increased serum creatinine levels and decreased urine output and is limited to a duration

of 7 days, whereas chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a defined as persistent decrease in kidney function beyond 90 days.

Thus, AKI and

CKD can form a continuum whereby initial kidney injury can lead to persistent renal injury, eventually leading to CKD.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is estimated to occur

in approximately 20–200 per million population in the community, 7–18% of patients in hospital, and approximately 50% of

patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

Importantly, AKI is associated with morbidity and mortality;

AKI affects 13 million

people worldwide, and an estimated 2 million people die of AKI every year, whereas AKI survivors are at increased risk of developing

chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) — conditions that carry a high economic, societal and personal

burden (Chawla et al., Nature Reviews-Nephrology, 2017).

Current treatment of acute kidney injury

Currently there are no FDA approved medicines

to treat AKI.

Treatment options for AKI include continuous renal replacement therapy, renal transplant, and dialysis.

In most cases the

damage to the kidney is irreversible, and the patient needs to have a renal transplant or be on dialysis for life.

Therefore, there is

a high unmet medical need.

If approved, UNI-494 has the potential to be a first-in-class drug for the treatment of AKI.

Role of Mitochondria in kidney diseases

The kidney has one of the highest mitochondrial

densities in the body.

Both acute and chronic kidney disease is associated with mitochondrial loss and impaired repair mechanisms, which

subsequently result in increased oxidative damage, cellular injury and cell death.

AKI and CKD not only form a continuum but are a bidirectional

process, wherein maladaptive repair of AKI leads to CKD and patients with underlying CKD conditions are predisposed to the development

Mitochondrial dysfunction plays a crucial role in both AKI and CKD, as shown in the diagram below.

Since mitochondrial dysfunction

is an important factor in the pathogenesis of AKI and CKD, mitochondria have emerged as a therapeutic target for treatment of these diseases.

Adapted from Bhatia et al, Kidney Research

and Practice 2020 39(3):244-258.

Background on nicorandil

Nicorandil, marketed in such products as Ikorel

and Dancor, is indicated for the treatment of chronic stable angina pectoris.

It is currently not approved in the United States

but has been approved for use in Australia, the United Kingdom and most of Europe, and in India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

is a dual-action mitochondrial potassium (mitochondrial K ATP ) channel activator and nitrate-like vasodilator.

Activation of

mitochondrial K ATP channel leads to restoration of mitochondrial function and cytoprotection.

Nicorandil has extensive safety

and efficacy data from multiple clinical trials, including a 5,000-patient randomized controlled trial (IONA Study, Lancet 2002) and

there is a consensus in the literature that the activation of mitochondrial K ATP channel is the biological basis for

the observed cardio-protection and reno-protection in multiple clinical trials.

Nicorandil efficacy in acute kidney injury

Nicorandil has been reported to have a potential

protective effect in the kidneys in preclinical studies (Shiraishi 2014, Tamura 2012, Tanabe 2012).

In animal studies, nicorandil has

demonstrated efficacy in multiple standard models of kidney disease such as ischemic reperfusion injury, 5/6 nephrectomy models of chronic

kidney disease, diabetic nephropathy and hypertensive models (see Table 4).

Notably, these effects occur in a blood pressure-independent

manner, indicating that these beneficial effects are not simply a result of decreasing pressure-mediated kidney damage, but a direct

beneficial effect on the kidney.

A brief summary from these preclinical studies is provided in the Table below.

Efficacy of nicorandil in standard

models of kidney disease

More importantly, several randomized clinical

studies have indicated improved renal outcomes with nicorandil in patients with chronic kidney disease, poor renal function, and those

undergoing coronary angiography/percutaneous coronary intervention (CAG/PCI).

A brief summary from a couple of randomized clinical trials

in contrast induced nephropathy (AKI) is described in the table below.

Efficacy of nicorandil in clinical

trials in Acute Kidney Injury

In 2020, to bring together the growing evidence

of the effectiveness of nicorandil for the prevention of Contrast Induced Nephropathy (CIN).

Pranata published the results of a systematic

literature review and meta-analysis of clinical studies investigating the use of nicorandil in patients undergoing CAG or PCI.

the seven trials (sample size N=1,532), nicorandil was shown to decrease the incidence of CIN by 69% (OR:

of other factors in the respective studies.

In addition, a subgroup analysis showed that nicorandil also provided protection against

CIN in patients with renal dysfunction (OR:

95% CI 0.22, 0.61), which was defined as an eGFR £ 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 .

When analyzed by the mode of administration, oral nicorandil was shown to have greater efficacy compared with nicorandil infusions (OR:

0.29 vs 0.40).

Overall, Pranata et al.

concluded that nicorandil was associated with a lower risk of CIN in patients undergoing

CAG/PCI with a moderate level of certainty (Pranata et al 2020).

Limitations of Nicorandil

Despite these promising results, development

of nicorandil for use in acute kidney injury has not been successfully pursued to date.

Nicorandil possesses at least two features that

may limit its use in this clinical setting.

First, nicorandil has a short half-life in humans of approximately 1 hour, which results

in the need to dose nicorandil multiple times per day to achieve sustained blood levels.

Second, nicorandil has been associated with

rare but serious ulcerations in the gastrointestinal tract.

The chance of this rare, but potentially severe, side effect increases with

higher doses and long-term use of this drug and heals after drug withdrawal.

A recent population-based study of this drug’s association

with GI ulceration or perforation has been reported (Lee et al., Scientific Reports, 2015).

This study, based on more than 600,000 randomly

selected patients, found a 43% increase in the risk of GI ulceration and a 60% increase in the risk of GI perforation.

This effect appears

dose-dependent and limits the maximum labeled dose of nicorandil in Europe.

a Pro-drug of Nicorandil

494 is a patented pro-drug that was designed to be absorbed into the systemic circulation, and once absorbed, to release nicorandil into

the bloodstream.

By avoiding direct exposure to the gastrointestinal tract of nicorandil, it is believed that UNI 494 may be able to

minimize or avoid the gastrointestinal side effects of nicorandil.

Also, based on the rate of conversion of UNI 494 to nicorandil in

the systemic circulation, UNI 494 may offer greater and/or more prolonged exposure to nicorandil for the treatment of patients with acute

kidney injury.

Our technology for UNI 494 is licensed from Sphaera Pharmaceutical Private Limited, a Singapore-based company (“Sphaera”),

with offices in India and the US.

We have the global, exclusive license to UNI 494.

Sphaera conceived of and performed initial characterization

of various potential pro-drug linkers, including the initial patent application, and performed some initial physiochemical characterization

and preliminary animal pharmacokinetic studies.

October 2020, we completed preclinical studies in rats and dogs demonstrating systemic exposure to nicorandil following oral dosing of

In dogs, oral dosing of UNI 494 produced up to 4 times greater systemic exposure to nicorandil compared with literature data

on equimolar doses of nicorandil itself.

have selected rat and dog as the most suitable species for the GLP toxicology program for UNI 494, which we plan to commence in 2022.

License Agreement

October 1, 2017, we entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “Sphaera License Agreement”) with Sphaera Pharma Pte.

Ltd., a Singaporean pharmaceutical corporation (“Sphaera”).

Pursuant to the Sphaera License Agreement, we acquired an exclusive

royalty-bearing worldwide license to develop, make, have made, use, practice, research, distribute, lease, sell, offer for sale, license,

import or otherwise dispose of certain rights owned or controlled by Sphaera and/or any of its affiliates, related to UNI 494 (the “UNI

494 Rights”).

We also acquired a non-exclusive license to certain know-how and technology related to the UNI 494 Rights.

conceived of and performed initial characterization of various potential pro-drug linkers, including the initial patent application,

and performed some initial physicochemical characterization and preliminary animal pharmacokinetic studies.

the terms of the Sphaera License Agreement, we are obligated to pay to Sphaera, on a quarterly basis, a running royalty of 2% of our

net sales (including our affiliates) in connection with the sales of UNI 494;

provided, however, that if we are required to make royalty

payments to one or more third parties whose patent rights would be infringed by the exercise of the UNI 494 Rights, we may reduce such

running royalty due to Sphaera by the amount of such third-party royalty rate.

are also required to pay to Sphaera certain milestone payments, including, upon our initiation of a second clinical trial;

the time the first patient in such trial is dosed;

an additional $50,000 within 30 days of completion of such trial;

and at the time

the FDA accepts a New Drug Application for UNI494, $1.65 million.

In addition, we are responsible for the prosecution of patent rights,

and any related costs and expenses for patent prosecution and maintenance.

also have the right, but not the obligation, to defend the UNI 494 rights during the term of the Sphaera License Agreement;

however, that if we determine not to prosecute or maintain such rights in any country, we must provide ninety (90) days written notice

We may terminate the Sphaera License Agreement at any time by providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to Sphaera.

Additionally, in the event that either we or Sphaera breach any of our respective material obligations, the non-breaching party may,

in its sole discretion, have the right to terminate the Sphaera License Agreement, provided that it give the breaching party written

notice specifying the nature of the breach and amounts of running royalty payments due, if any.

In such an occurrence, the termination

notice is effective ninety (90) days from receipt of the notice if the breaching party has failed to cure the breach.

trials for UNI 494 in AKI

494 is currently in preclinical development.

We plan to conduct repeat-dose animal toxicology studies and other IND-enabling preclinical

studies in 2022 prior to initiating clinical development of UNI 494 in AKI.

is challenging to conduct clinical trials in AKI trials due to the multiple etiologies of AKI.

We believe that UNI 494 should be evaluated

in clinical trials focusing on a few select etiologies in which UNI 494 has a very strong mechanistic rationale based on nicorandil clinical

experience in terms of protection of kidney function and secondary benefits.

Based on our understanding of mechanism of action of the drug, we are

in discussions with key opinion leaders (KOLs) to identify t the AKI subsets where UNI 494 can be most active and subsets of AKI patients

who are most likely to benefit from UNI-494.

We are planning to conduct preclinical studies in animal models to further explore the efficacy

and development path in the AKI indication.

We have also identified patient populations where we would not likely evaluate UNI 494 in

clinical trials, including patients with prior history of gastrointestinal ulcerations.

This will become exclusion criteria in future

clinical trials for UNI 494.

Strategy for UNI 494

Nicorandil is already approved in Europe and Asia

for the treatment of heart disease.

We believe there is a possibility these historical Nicorandil data, along with preclinical and clinical

data with UNI 494 itself, can be utilized for streamlined US FDA review of UNI 494.

While pre-clinical requirements to start a clinical

program for an IND would be similar for UNI-494 as for NCE (New Chemical Entity).

We believe that the vast clinical data set from Nicorandil

will potentially help us to expedite the clinical development program with the FDA.

to a 2017 article by Silver and Chertow, the current cost of care for AKI in the U.S.

is estimated to be between $5.4 to $24 billion

In England, inpatient costs related to AKI are estimated to make up 1% of the total National Health Service budget.

effective treatment for AKI, it is not possible to definitively state a market figure.

However, with the high cost and burden of AKI,

we believe a conservative market estimate is approximately $3 billion in the US alone.

The lack of effective therapeutic interventions

for AKI means that UNI 494 has the potential to be the first drug approved for the treatment of AKI.

UNI-494 was rationally designed to be absorbed

into the systemic circulation, and once absorbed, to release nicorandil into the bloodstream.

By avoiding direct exposure to the gastrointestinal

tract of nicorandil, it is believed that UNI-494 may be able to minimize or avoid the gastrointestinal side effects of nicorandil.

based on the rate of conversion of UNI-494 to nicorandil in the systemic circulation, UNI-494 may offer greater and/or more prolonged

exposure to nicorandil for the treatment of patients with acute kidney injury.

Our technology for UNI-494 is licensed from Sphaera Pharmaceutical

Private Limited, a Singapore-based company (“Sphaera”), with offices in India and the U.S.

We have the global, exclusive

license to UNI-494.

Sphaera conceived of and performed initial characterization of various potential pro-drug linkers, including the

initial patent application, and performed some initial physiochemical characterization and preliminary animal pharmacokinetic studies.

We conducted preclinical studies in rats and

dogs demonstrating systemic exposure to nicorandil following oral dosing of UNI-494.

In dogs, oral dosing of UNI-494 produced up to four

times greater systemic exposure to nicorandil compared with literature data on equimolar doses of nicorandil itself.

Mechanism of Action of UNI-494

UNI-494 is a novel proprietary drug that selectively

binds to the SUR2B subunit of the mitochondrial K ATP channel and activates it to restore mitochondrial function and reduce

oxidative stress.

UNI-494 is cleaved by esterase enzymes to form nicorandil, the active metabolite .

The proposed mechanism of action of UNI-494 is shown in the diagram below:

Clinical trials for UNI-494 in AKI

It is challenging to conduct clinical trials

in AKI trials due to the multiple etiologies of AKI.

We believe that UNI-494 should be evaluated in clinical trials focusing on a few

select etiologies in which UNI-494 has a very strong mechanistic rationale based on nicorandil clinical experience in terms of protection

of kidney function and secondary benefits.

Based on our understanding of the mechanism of

action of the drug, we are in discussions with key opinion leaders (KOLs) to identify the AKI subsets where UNI-494 can be most active

and subsets of AKI patients who are most likely to benefit from UNI-494.

We are planning to conduct preclinical studies in animal models

to further explore the efficacy and development path in the AKI indication.

We have also identified patient populations where we would

not likely evaluate UNI-494 in clinical trials, including patients with prior history of gastrointestinal ulcerations.

This will become

exclusion criteria in future clinical trials for UNI-494.

UNI-494 Development Status

We have completed all

non-clinical safety assessment studies required for regulatory filing and submitted a Clinical Trial Application (CTA) to the Medicines

and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to initiate a Phase 1 study in healthy volunteers in the United Kingdom in December

The MHRA has completed review of our CTA and issued a notice of acceptance for UNI-494 first-in-human Phase 1 study in healthy

We also plan to file a corresponding Investigational New Drug (IND) application with the FDA in 2024 for a Phase 2 proof-of-concept

trial in acute kidney injury (AKI) patients.

Regulatory Strategy for UNI-494

Nicorandil is already approved in Europe and

Asia for the treatment of heart disease.

We believe there is a possibility these historical Nicorandil data, along with preclinical and

clinical data with UNI-494 itself, can be utilized for streamlined U.S.

FDA review of UNI-494.

While pre-clinical requirements to start

a clinical program for an IND would be similar for UNI-494 as for NCE (New Chemical Entity).

We believe that the vast clinical data set

from Nicorandil will potentially help us to expedite the clinical development program with the FDA.

Market Potential

According to a 2017 article by Silver and Chertow,

the current cost of care for AKI in the U.S.

is estimated to be between $5.4 billion to $24 billion per year.

In England, inpatient costs

related to AKI are estimated to make up 1% of the total National Health Service budget.

With no effective treatment for AKI, it is not

possible to definitively state a market figure.

However, with the high cost and burden of caring for AKI patients, we believe a conservative

market estimate is approximately $3 billion in the U.S.

The lack of effective therapeutic interventions for AKI means that UNI-494

has the potential to be the first drug approved for the treatment of AKI.

AKI is a heterogeneous disease.

We plan to target a more homogeneous AKI population for UNI 494 by focusing on kidney injury caused by complications from heart failure,

surgeries, drugs, and contrast induced nephropathy.

operate in a highly competitive and regulated industry that is subject to rapid and frequent changes.

We face significant competition

from organizations that are pursuing products that would compete with the product candidates we are developing and the same or similar

products that target the same conditions we intend to treat.

Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to compete successfully

against these organizations, which include many large, well-financed and experienced pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as

well as academic and research institutions and government agencies.

commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, as well as

novel discoveries, product development technologies, and know-how.

commercial success also depends in part on our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent

others from infringing our proprietary rights.

Our policy is to develop and maintain protection of our proprietary position by, among

other methods, filing or in-licensing U.S.

and foreign patents and applications related to our technology, inventions, and improvements

that are important to the development and implementation of our business.

also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, confidentiality agreements, and invention assignment

agreements to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

The confidentiality agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information

and the invention assignment agreements are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed for us by our employees,

consultants, or other third parties.

We seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining

physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

While we have confidence

in our agreements and security measures, either may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies.

In addition, our trade secrets

may otherwise become known or independently discovered by competitors.

respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any

of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any

of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial

products and methods of using and manufacturing the same.

Patent Portfolio

Renazorb patent portfolio includes one family of granted United States patents, with related applications pending, and an additional

family of granted foreign patents, with related applications also pending.

Granted and pending claims offer various forms of protection

for Renazorb including claims to compositions of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, specific forms (such as polymorphs of lanthanum

dioxycarbonate), methods of making the composition of matter, and methods for treating elevated levels of phosphate in the blood using

These United States patents and applications, and their foreign equivalents, are described in more detail below.

patent family and the foreign patent family containing claims to Renazorb and related compounds were filed in 2011.

of patent term extension, the U.S.

patents from this family containing claims covering Renazorb has a statutory expiration date in 2031.

Corresponding patents granted in Canada, Europe (validated in multiple European Patent Convention member states), Japan, China, Australia,

and other countries have statutory expiration dates in 2031.

some cases, granted United States patents claiming Renazorb have a longer statutory term than the corresponding foreign patents.

results from the USPTO’s practice of granting patent term adjustments for prosecution delays originating at the USPTO.

Such adjustments

are generally not available under foreign patent laws.

If Renazorb is approved for marketing in the United States, under the Hatch-Waxman

Act we may be eligible for up to five years patent term extension for a granted United States patent containing claims covering Renazorb.

Similar term extensions may be available in Europe, Japan, Australia, and certain other foreign jurisdictions.

The amount of any such

term extension, and the identity of the patent to which it would apply, are dependent upon several factors including the duration of

the development program and the date of marketing approval.

most relevant granted United States patents with claims covering Renazob are listed below, along with their projected expiration dates

exclusive of any patent term extension.

Patent Number

carbonate hydroxide, lanthanum oxycarbonate and methods of their manufacture and use

Lanthanum carbonate

hydroxide, lanthanum oxycarbonate and methods of their manufacture and use

believe that we have a strong global intellectual property position, substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to UNI 494.

October 28, 2020, we have one granted U.S.

patent that is exclusively licensed to us from Sphaera Pharma Pte Ltd.

In addition, we have

one application that we own.

We plan to target a more homogeneous

AKI population for UNI-494 by focusing on kidney injury caused by complications from heart failure, surgeries, drugs, and contrast induced

Sphaera License Agreement

On October 1, 2017, we entered into an exclusive

license agreement (the “Sphaera License Agreement”) with Sphaera Pharma Pte.

Ltd., a Singaporean pharmaceutical corporation

Pursuant to the Sphaera License Agreement, we acquired an exclusive royalty-bearing worldwide license to develop,

make, have made, use, practice, research, distribute, lease, sell, offer for sale, license, import or otherwise dispose of certain rights

owned or controlled by Sphaera and/or any of its affiliates, related to UNI-494 (the “UNI-494 Rights”).

We also acquired

a non-exclusive license to certain know-how and technology related to the UNI-494 Rights.

Sphaera conceived of and performed initial

characterization of various potential pro-drug linkers, including the initial patent application, and performed some initial physicochemical

characterization and preliminary animal pharmacokinetic studies.

Under the terms of the Sphaera License Agreement,

we are obligated to pay to Sphaera, on a quarterly basis, a running royalty of 2% of our net sales (including our affiliates) in connection

with the global sales of UNI-494;

provided, however, that if we are required to make royalty payments to one or more third parties whose

patent rights would be infringed by the exercise of the UNI-494 Rights, we may reduce such running royalty due to Sphaera by the amount

of such third-party royalty rate.

We are also required to pay to Sphaera certain

milestone payments, including, upon our initiation of a second clinical trial;

$50,000 at the time the first patient in such trial is

an additional $50,000 within 30 days of completion of such trial;

and at the time the FDA accepts a NDA for UNI494, $1.65 million.

In addition, we are responsible for the prosecution of patent rights, and any related costs and expenses for patent prosecution and maintenance.

We also have the right, but not the obligation,

to defend the UNI-494 rights during the term of the Sphaera License Agreement;

provided, however, that if we determine not to prosecute

or maintain such rights in any country, we must provide ninety (90) days written notice to Sphaera.

We may terminate the Sphaera License

Agreement at any time by providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to Sphaera.

Additionally, in the event that either we or Sphaera

breach any of our respective material obligations, the non-breaching party may, in its sole discretion, have the right to terminate the

Sphaera License Agreement, provided that it give the breaching party written notice specifying the nature of the breach and amounts of

running royalty payments due, if any.

In such an occurrence, the termination notice is effective ninety (90) days from receipt of the

notice if the breaching party has failed to cure the breach.

We operate in a highly competitive and regulated

industry that is subject to rapid and frequent changes.

We face significant competition from organizations that are pursuing products

that would compete with the product candidates we are developing and the same or similar products that target the same conditions we

intend to treat.

Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to compete successfully against these organizations, which include

many large, well-financed and experienced pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic and research institutions and

government agencies.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our

ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, as well as novel discoveries, product development technologies,

and know-how.

Our commercial success also depends in part on

our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights.

Our policy is to develop and maintain protection of our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing or in-licensing U.S.

foreign patents and applications related to our technology, inventions, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation

of our business.

We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know-how,

continuing technological innovation, confidentiality agreements, and invention assignment agreements to develop and maintain our proprietary

The confidentiality agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and the invention assignment agreements

are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed for us by our employees, consultants, or other third parties.

seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and

physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

While we have confidence in our agreements and security measures,

either may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies.

In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or independently

discovered by competitors.

With respect to both licensed and company-owned

intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with

respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that

may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of using and manufacturing

Renazorb Patent Portfolio

Our Renazorb patent portfolio includes one family

of granted United States patents, with related applications pending, and an additional family of granted foreign patents, with related

applications also pending.

Granted and pending claims offer various forms of protection for Renazorb including claims to compositions

of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, specific forms (such as polymorphs of lanthanum dioxycarbonate), methods of making the composition

of matter, and methods for treating elevated levels of phosphate in the blood using Renazorb.

These United States patents and applications,

and their foreign equivalents, are described in more detail below.

Both the U.S.

patent family and the foreign patent

family containing claims to Renazorb and related compounds were filed in 2011.

Exclusive of patent term extension, the U.S.

from this family containing claims covering Renazorb has a statutory expiration date in 2031.

Corresponding patents granted in Canada,

Europe (validated in multiple European Patent Convention member states), Japan, China, Australia, and other countries have statutory

expiration dates in 2031.

In some cases, granted United States patents

claiming Renazorb have a longer statutory term than the corresponding foreign patents.

This results from the USPTO’s practice of

granting patent term adjustments for prosecution delays originating at the USPTO.

Such adjustments are generally not available under

foreign patent laws.

If Renazorb is approved for marketing in the United States, under the Hatch-Waxman Act we may be eligible for up

to five years patent term extension for a granted United States patent containing claims covering Renazorb.

Similar term extensions may

be available in Europe, Japan, Australia, and certain other foreign jurisdictions.

The amount of any such term extension, and the identity

of the patent to which it would apply, are dependent upon several factors including the duration of the development program and the date

of marketing approval.

The most relevant granted United States patents

with claims covering Renazob are listed below, along with their projected expiration dates exclusive of any patent term extension.

Lanthanum carbonate hydroxide, lanthanum oxycarbonate and

methods of their manufacture and use

Lanthanum carbonate hydroxide, lanthanum oxycarbonate and methods of

their manufacture and use

We believe that we have a strong global intellectual

property position, substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to UNI 494.

As of October 28, 2020, we have one granted U.S.

that is exclusively licensed to us from Sphaera Pharma Pte Ltd.

In addition, we have one application that we own.

The granted U.S.

patent is directed to methods of making UNI 494, and it is expected to expire in 2032.

The PCT application is directed to methods of using UNI 494, and to other compositions of matter and their uses.

global patents issue from this PCT application, they are expected to expire in 2040.

authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level, including the FDA, the FTC and the DEA, extensively regulate,

among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, recordkeeping,

promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of products such as those we plan to develop and market.

the products under development and to be marketed, failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can, among other things,

result in suspension of regulatory approval and possible civil and criminal sanctions.

Regulations, enforcement positions, statutes and

legal interpretations applicable to the pharmaceutical industry are constantly evolving and are not always clear.

Significant changes

in regulations, enforcement positions, statutes and legal interpretations could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition

and results of our operations.

Additionally,

future healthcare legislation or other legislative proposals at the federal and state levels could bring about major changes in the affected

health care systems, including statutory restrictions on the means that can be employed by brand and generic pharmaceutical companies

to settle Paragraph IV patent litigations.

We cannot predict the outcome of such initiatives, but such initiatives, if passed, could

result in significant costs to us in terms of costs of compliance and penalties associated with failure to comply.

Pharmaceutical

Regulation in the United States

the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA and its implementing regulations.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals

and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of

substantial time and financial resources.

is directed to methods of making UNI 494, and it is expected to expire in 2032.

The PCT application is directed to methods of using UNI

494, and to other compositions of matter and their uses.

and other global patents issue from this PCT application, they are

expected to expire in 2040.

Government Regulations

Government authorities in the United States at

the federal, state and local level, including the FDA, the FTC and the DEA, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development,

testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, promotion, advertising, distribution,

marketing and export and import of products such as those we plan to develop and market.

For both the products under development and

to be marketed, failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can, among other things, result in suspension of regulatory

approval and possible civil and criminal sanctions.

Regulations, enforcement positions, statutes and legal interpretations applicable

to the pharmaceutical industry are constantly evolving and are not always clear.

Significant changes in regulations, enforcement positions,

statutes and legal interpretations could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of our operations.

Additionally, future healthcare legislation or

other legislative proposals at the federal and state levels could bring about major changes in the affected health care systems, including

statutory restrictions on the means that can be employed by brand and generic pharmaceutical companies to settle Paragraph IV patent

We cannot predict the outcome of such initiatives, but such initiatives, if passed, could result in significant costs to

us in terms of costs of compliance and penalties associated with failure to comply.

Pharmaceutical Regulation in the United States

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs

under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and its implementing regulations.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the

subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial

time and financial resources.

Failure to comply with the applicable U.S.

requirements at any time during the product development

process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions.

These sanctions could include

the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, Warning Letters, product recalls,

product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution of product(s), injunctions, fines, refusals of government

requirements at any time during the product development process,

approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions.

These sanctions could include the

FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, Warning or Untitled Letters, product

recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution of product(s), injunctions, fines, refusals of government

contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties.

1 unchanged sentence

adverse effect on us.

approval is required before any new unapproved drug or dosage form, including a new use of a previously approved drug or a generic version

of a previously approved drug, can be marketed in the United States.

process required by the FDA before a new drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves:

of preclinical laboratory and animal testing and formulation studies in compliance with the

FDA’s current GLP regulations;

to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human

clinical trials may begin in the United States;

by an IRB at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;

FDA approval is required before any new unapproved

drug or dosage form, including a new use of a previously approved drug or a generic version of a previously approved drug, can be marketed

in the United States.

The process required by the FDA before a new

drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves:

Completion of preclinical laboratory and animal testing and formulation

studies in compliance with the FDA’s current good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations;

Submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must

become effective before human clinical trials may begin in the United States;

by an institutional review board (IRB) at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;

● Performance

of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with the FDA to establish

the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each intended use;

● Satisfactory

completion of a pre-approval inspection by FDA of the facility or facilities at which the

product is manufactured to assess compliance with the FDA’s cGMP regulations and to

assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s

identity, strength, quality and purity;

of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with the FDA good clinical

practice (GCP) requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish the

safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each intended use;

Satisfactory completion of a pre-approval inspection by FDA of the

facility or facilities at which the product is manufactured to assess compliance with the FDA’s cGMP regulations and to assure

that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

Submission to the FDA of an NDA;

Satisfactory completion of a potential review by an FDA advisory committee, if applicable;

Satisfactory completion of a potential review by an FDA advisory committee,

if applicable;

FDA review and approval of the NDA.

developing a branded product and bringing it to market, the first step in proceeding to clinical studies is preclinical testing.

tests are intended to provide a laboratory or animal study evaluation of the product to determine its chemistry, formulation and stability.

Toxicology studies are also performed to assess the potential safety of the product.

The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply

with federal regulations and requirements, including GLPs.

The results of these studies are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application

along with other information, including product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed clinical trial protocol.

preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue concurrently with the IND application.

trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators

in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing

for their participation in any clinical trial.

Clinical trials are conducted 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.

A protocol for each clinical

trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

In addition, an IRB at each institution

participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it is initiated at that institution.

Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on their www.clinicaltrials.gov

clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may be distinct, or overlap or be combined:

The drug is initially

introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition, and tested for safety, dosage tolerance,

absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness.

The drug is administered

to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of

the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance.

The drug is administered

to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials

to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit

profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.

reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse

events occur.

Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all.

the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research

subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at

its institution if it is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with

unexpected serious harm to patients.

completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA.

FDA approval of the NDA is required before

marketing of the product may begin in the United States.

The NDA must include, among other things, the results of all preclinical, clinical

and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls.

federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to a substantial application user fee, and the manufacturer or sponsor of an approved

NDA is also subject to annual program fees.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will

be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit its substantive

The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing.

In some events, the NDA may be required to be

resubmitted with the additional information and it may be subject to payment of additional user fees.

The resubmitted application is

also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended, the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals for itself for the review

of NDAs through a two-tiered classification system, Standard Review and Priority Review.

Priority Review designation is given to drugs

that are intended to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness over

existing therapies.

The FDA endeavors to review most applications subject to Standard Review within ten to twelve months whereas its

goal is to complete most Priority Review applications within six to eight months, depending on whether the drug is a new molecular entity.

FDA may refer applications for certain drug products which present difficult questions related to its safety or efficacy to an advisory

committee for review, evaluation and recommendation, and to seek advice as to whether the application should be approved and under what

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements.

Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured.

The FDA will not approve the NDA

unless it determines that the manufacturing process and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure

consistent production of the product within required specifications, and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that

the drug is safe and effective for the labeled indication.

the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter to indicate

that the review cycle for an application is complete and that the application is not ready for approval.

A complete response letter generally

outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider

the application.

Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA may ultimately decide that an application does not satisfy

the regulatory criteria for approval.

If, or when, the deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission

of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing

information for specific indications.

As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation

and mitigation strategy (REMS) to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks.

If the FDA determines a REMS

is necessary during review of the application, the drug sponsor must agree to the REMS plan at the time of approval.

A REMS may be required

to include various elements, such as a medication guide or patient package insert, a communication plan to educate healthcare providers

of the drug’s risks, limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, or other elements to assure safe use, such as special

training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of

patient registries.

Preclinical Studies

When developing a branded product and bringing

it to market, the first step in proceeding to clinical studies is preclinical testing.

Preclinical tests are intended to provide a laboratory

or animal study evaluation of the product to determine its chemistry, formulation and stability.

Toxicology studies are also performed

to assess the potential safety of the product.

The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements,

including GLPs.

The results of these studies are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application along with other information, including

product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed clinical trial protocol.

Long-term preclinical tests, such as animal tests

of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue concurrently with the IND application.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of

the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements,

which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical

Clinical trials are conducted 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.

A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol

amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

In addition, an IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial

must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it is initiated at that institution.

Information about certain clinical

trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on their www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted

in three sequential phases, which may be distinct, or overlap or be combined:

The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects

or patients with the target disease or condition, and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution,

excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness.

The drug is administered to a limited patient population to

identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases

and to determine dosage tolerance.

The drug is administered to an expanded patient population,

generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically

evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to

provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.

Progress reports detailing the results of the

clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur.

Phase 1, Phase 2,

and Phase 3 trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all.

Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may

suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed

to an unacceptable health risk.

Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if it is not

being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Marketing Approval

After completion of the required clinical testing,

an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA.

FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United

The NDA must include, among other things, the results of all preclinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data

relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls.

Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is

subject to a substantial application user fee, and the manufacturer or sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to annual program fees.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s

threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit its substantive review.

The FDA may request additional information

rather than accept an NDA for filing.

In some events, the NDA may be required to be resubmitted with the additional information and it

may be subject to payment of additional user fees.

The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for

Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee

Act, as amended, the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals for itself for the review of NDAs through a two-tiered classification

system, Standard Review and Priority Review.

Priority Review designation is given to drugs that are intended to treat a serious condition

and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness over existing therapies.

The FDA endeavors to review

most applications subject to Standard Review within ten to twelve months whereas its goal is to complete most Priority Review applications

within six to eight months, depending on whether the drug is a new molecular entity.

The FDA may refer applications for certain drug

products which present difficult questions related to its safety or efficacy to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation,

and to seek advice as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will

typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements.

Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility

or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured.

The FDA will not approve the NDA unless it determines that the manufacturing process

and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required

specifications, and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective for the labeled indication.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing

facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter to indicate that the review cycle for an application is

complete and that the application is not ready for approval.

A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission

and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application.

Even with submission

of this additional information, the FDA may ultimately decide that an application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If, or when, the deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an

approval letter.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require

a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks.

determines a REMS is necessary during review of the application, the drug sponsor must agree to the REMS plan at the time of approval.

A REMS may be required to include various elements, such as a medication guide or patient package insert, a communication plan to educate

healthcare providers of the drug’s risks, limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, or other elements to assure safe

use, such as special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring

and the use of patient registries.

In addition, the REMS must include a timetable to periodically assess the strategy.

The requirement for a REMS can

materially affect the potential market and profitability of a drug.

product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy, and the

FDA has the authority to prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs.

granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or certain problems are identified

following initial marketing.

Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved

labeling, and, even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product or impose other conditions,

including labeling or distribution restrictions or other risk-management mechanisms.

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 a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented, which

may require us to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials.

An NDA supplement for a new

indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the similar procedures in reviewing

NDA supplements as it does in reviewing the original NDAs.

of Clinical Trial Information

of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information

on www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Information related to the product, subject population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators,

and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration.

Sponsors are also obligated to discuss certain

results of their clinical trials after its completion.

Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product

or new indication being studied has been approved.

Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding

the progress of development programs.

Post-Approval

an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements

relating to drug listing and registration, recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, adverse event reporting,

and advertising, marketing and promotion, 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 provisions of the approved labeling.

While physicians may choose to

prescribe a drug for off-label uses, manufacturers may only promote it for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions

of the approved labeling.

The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label

uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

There also are

extensive DEA regulations applicable to controlled substances.

event reporting and submission of periodic reports is also required following FDA approval of an NDA.

Additionally, the FDA may require

post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and/or surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product.

Alternatively,

the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product.

In addition, quality-control,

drug manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures must continue to comply with cGMPs after its approval.

Drug manufacturers and certain

of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments and list their marketed products with the FDA and certain state

Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects

manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs.

Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort

in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs.

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.

The FDA may also impose a REMS requirement on a drug already on the

market if the FDA determines, based on new safety information, that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the drug’s benefits outweigh

In addition, regulatory authorities may take other enforcement action, including, among other things, Warning Letters, the

seizure of products, injunctions, consent decrees placing significant restrictions on or suspending manufacturing operations, refusal

to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Hatch-Waxman Amendments

FDA is also authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA.

Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing

of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for

which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference from the data owner.

The applicant may rely upon the FDA’s findings of

safety and efficacy for an approved product that acts as the “listed drug.” The FDA may also require 505(b)(2) applicants

to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the listed drug.

The FDA may then approve the new product candidate

for all, or some, of the conditions of use for which the branded reference drug has been approved, or for a new condition of use sought

by the 505(b)(2) applicant.

New Drug Applications

Hatch-Waxman amendments to the FDCA established a statutory procedure for submission and FDA review and approval of ANDAs for generic

versions of listed drugs.

An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to

the API, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process

validation data and quality control procedures.

Premarket applications for generic drugs are termed abbreviated because they generally

do not include clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

However, a generic manufacturer is typically required to conduct

bioequivalence studies of its test product against the listed drug.

The bioequivalence studies for orally administered, systemically

available drug products assess the rate and extent to which the API is absorbed into the bloodstream from the drug product and becomes

available at the site of action.

Bioequivalence is established when there is an absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent

for absorption of the generic product and the reference listed drug.

For some drugs, other means of demonstrating bioequivalence may

be required by the FDA, especially where rate or extent of absorption are difficult or impossible to measure.

The FDA will approve the

generic product as suitable for an ANDA application if it finds that the generic product does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness

as compared to the reference listed drug.

A product is not eligible for ANDA approval if the FDA determines that it is not bioequivalent

to the reference listed drug, if it is intended for a different use, or if it is not subject to, and requires, an approved Suitability

seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA certain patents whose

claims cover the applicant’s product.

Upon approval of an NDA, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then

published in the Orange Book.

Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the

Orange Book or a 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA (i) that there is no patent listed

with the FDA as covering the relevant branded product, (ii) that any patent listed as covering the branded product has expired, (iii)

that the patent listed as covering the branded product will expire prior to the marketing of the generic product, in which case the ANDA

will not be finally approved by the FDA until the expiration of such patent or (iv) that any patent listed as covering the branded drug

is invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, sale or use of the generic product for which the ANDA is submitted.

of the Paragraph IV certification must be provided to each owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification and to the holder

of the approved NDA to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application refers.

The applicant may also elect to submit a “section viii”

statement certifying that its proposed label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather

than certify to a listed method-of-use patent.

the reference NDA holder and patent owners assert a patent challenge directed to one of the Orange Book listed patents within 45 days

of the receipt of the Paragraph IV certification notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the application until the earlier of 30

months from the receipt of the Paragraph IV certification, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement

case that is favorable to the applicant.

The ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent

exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the branded reference drug has expired as described in further detail below.

addition to patent exclusivity, the holder of the NDA for the listed drug may be entitled to a period of non-patent exclusivity, during

which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application that relies on the listed drug.

example, for listed drugs that were considered new chemical entities at the time of approval, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application referencing

that drug may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years after approval of that drug, unless the submission is accompanied

by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

drug, including one approved under Section 505(b)(2), may obtain a three-year period of exclusivity for a particular condition of approval,

or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical studies (other

than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted/sponsored by the applicant.

In addition, drugs approved for diseases for which the patient population is sufficiently small, or orphan indications, are entitled

to a seven-year data exclusivity period.

and Reimbursement

commercialization of our products depends, in part, on the availability of governmental and third-party payor reimbursement for the cost

of our products.

Government authorities and third-party payors increasingly are challenging the price of medical products and services.

On the government side, there is a heightened focus, at both the federal and state levels, on decreasing costs and reimbursement rates

for Medicaid, Medicare and other government insurance programs.

This has led to an increase in federal and state legislative initiatives

related to drug prices, which could significantly influence the purchase of pharmaceutical products, resulting in lower prices and changes

in product demand.

If enacted, these changes could lead to reduced payments to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Many states have also created

preferred drug lists and include drugs on those lists only when the manufacturers agree to pay a supplemental rebate.

If our current

products or future product candidates are not included on these preferred drug lists, physicians may not be inclined to prescribe them

to their Medicaid patients, thereby diminishing the potential market for our products.

addition, third-party payors have been imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage and limiting reimbursement levels

for pharmaceutical products.

Third-party payors may require manufacturers to provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices

and limit coverage to specific pharmaceutical products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved

pharmaceutical products for particular indications.

Third-party payors may challenge the price and examine the medical necessity and

cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical products in addition to their safety and efficacy.

Manufacturers may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic

studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical products in addition to the costs required

to obtain the FDA approvals.

Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable manufacturers to maintain price levels

sufficient to realize an appropriate return on their investment in drug development.

the United States, there have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last several years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical

products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system of the United States.

It is uncertain what other legislative

proposals may be adopted or what actions federal, state, or private payors may take in response to any healthcare reform proposals or

We cannot predict the effect such reforms may have on our business, and no assurance can be given that any such reforms

will not have a material adverse effect.

way of example, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”), was signed into law, which, among other things, includes

changes to the coverage and payment for drug products under government health care programs.

The law includes measures that (i) significantly

increase Medicaid rebates through both the expansion of the program and significant increases in rebates, (ii) substantially expand the

Public Health System (340B) program to allow other entities to purchase prescription drugs at substantial discounts, (iii) extend the

Medicaid rebate rate to a significant portion of Managed Medicaid enrollees, (iv) assess a rebate on Medicaid Part D spending in the

coverage gap for branded and authorized generic prescription drugs, and (v) levy a significant excise tax on the industry to fund the

The requirement

for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a drug.

Sometimes, product approval may require substantial

post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy, and the FDA has the authority to prevent or limit

further marketing of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs.

Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn

if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or certain problems are identified following initial marketing.

marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling, and, even if the FDA approves

a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product or impose other conditions, including labeling or distribution

restrictions or other risk-management mechanisms.

Further 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 a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented, which may require us to develop additional data

or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials.

An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data

similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the similar procedures in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing

the original NDAs.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated

products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on www.clinical trials.gov.

related to the product, subject population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical

trial is then made public as part of the registration.

Sponsors are also obligated to discuss certain results of their clinical trials

after its completion.

Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied

has been approved.

Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Post-Approval Requirements

Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject

to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to drug listing and registration,

recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, adverse event reporting, and advertising, marketing and promotion,

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 provisions of the approved labeling.

While physicians may choose to prescribe a drug for off-label uses, manufacturers

may only promote it for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.

The FDA and other agencies

actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly

promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

There also are extensive DEA regulations applicable to controlled substances.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic

reports is also required following FDA approval of an NDA.

Additionally, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4

testing, REMS, and/or surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product.

Alternatively, the FDA may place conditions on an approval

that could restrict the distribution or use of the product.

In addition, quality-control, drug manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures

must continue to comply with cGMPs after its approval.

Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register

their establishments and list their marketed products 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 cGMPs.

Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain

compliance with cGMPs.

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

The FDA may also impose a REMS requirement on a drug already on the market if the FDA determines, based on new safety information,

that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the drug’s benefits outweigh its risks.

In addition, regulatory authorities may take other

enforcement action, including, among other things, Warning or Untitled Letters, the seizure of products, injunctions, consent decrees

placing significant restrictions on or suspending manufacturing operations, refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to

approved applications, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

505(b)(2) NDAs

The FDA is also authorized to approve an alternative

type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA.

Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information

required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of

reference from the data owner.

The applicant may rely upon the FDA’s findings of safety and efficacy for an approved product that

acts as the “listed drug.” The FDA may also require 505(b)(2) applicants to perform additional studies or measurements to

support the change from the listed drug.

The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the conditions of use

for which the branded reference drug has been approved, or for a new condition of use sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications

The Hatch-Waxman amendments to the FDCA established

a statutory procedure for submission and FDA review and approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for generic versions of

listed drugs.

An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active

pharmaceutical ingredient (API), drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods,

manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures.

Premarket applications for generic drugs are termed abbreviated

because they generally do not include clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

However, a generic manufacturer is typically

required to conduct bioequivalence studies of its test product against the listed drug.

The bioequivalence studies for orally administered,

systemically available drug products assess the rate and extent to which the API is absorbed into the bloodstream from the drug product

and becomes available at the site of action.

Bioequivalence is established when there is an absence of a significant difference in the

rate and extent for absorption of the generic product and the reference listed drug.

For some drugs, other means of demonstrating bioequivalence

may be required by the FDA, especially where rate or extent of absorption are difficult or impossible to measure.

The FDA will approve

the generic product as suitable for an ANDA application if it finds that the generic product does not raise new questions of safety and

effectiveness as compared to the reference listed drug.

A product is not eligible for ANDA approval if the FDA determines that it is

not bioequivalent to the reference listed drug, if it is intended for a different use, or if it is not subject to, and requires, an approved

Suitability Petition.

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA,

including a 505(b)(2) NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA certain patents whose claims cover the applicant’s product.

Upon approval of an NDA, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book.

Any applicant

who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the Orange Book or a 505(b)(2) NDA referencing

a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA (i) that there is no patent listed with the FDA as covering the relevant branded

product, (ii) that any patent listed as covering the branded product has expired, (iii) that the patent listed as covering the branded

product will expire prior to the marketing of the generic product, in which case the ANDA will not be finally approved by the FDA until

the expiration of such patent or (iv) that any patent listed as covering the branded drug is invalid or will not be infringed by the

manufacture, sale or use of the generic product for which the ANDA is submitted.

A notice of the Paragraph IV certification must be provided

to each owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification and to the holder of the approved NDA to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2)

application refers.

The applicant may also elect to submit a “section viii” statement certifying that its proposed label

does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent.

If the reference NDA holder and patent owners

assert a patent challenge directed to one of the Orange Book listed patents within 45 days of the receipt of the Paragraph IV certification

notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the Paragraph IV certification,

expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the applicant.

or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the branded

reference drug has expired as described in further detail below.

Non-Patent Exclusivity

In addition to patent exclusivity, the holder

of the NDA for the listed drug may be entitled to a period of non-patent exclusivity, during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or

505(b)(2) application that relies on the listed drug.

For example, for listed drugs that were considered

new chemical entities at the time of approval, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application referencing that drug may not be filed with the FDA until

the expiration of five years after approval of that drug, unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which

case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

A drug, including one approved under Section

505(b)(2), may obtain a three-year period of exclusivity for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such

as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical studies (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence

studies) was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted/sponsored by the applicant.

In addition, drugs approved for

diseases for which the patient population is sufficiently small, or orphan indications, may be entitled to a seven-year data exclusivity

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries,

patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party

payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement

status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities.

Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the

product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such

as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement

levels for, the product.

The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process

for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved.

Third-party payors are

increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products

and services and imposing controls to manage costs.

Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also

known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In addition, third-party payors

may impose prior authorization or step edit requirements requiring patients to have tried other therapies prior to our products for coverage.

Payors may also decline to include our products or product candidates on their formulary, which means that unless healthcare providers

seek a medical exception for coverage, the payors will not pay for the product.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any

product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the

medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing

Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective.

A decision by a third-party payor

not to cover a product candidate could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on

sales, results of operations and financial condition.

Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not

imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved.

Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product

does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement

can differ significantly from payor to payor.

Dialysis-related drugs are included in the ESRD

bundled prospective payment system (PPS) for renal dialysis services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries and are grouped into functional

categories such as bone and mineral metabolism, except that oral-only drugs are exempted from inclusion until 2025.

In a final ESRD PPS

rule published in October 2022, CMS confirmed that it intends to end the oral-only exclusion of hyperphosphatemia drugs from the ESRD

PPS on January 1, 2025.

At this time a TDAPA (transitional drug add-on payment adjustment) will provide separate payment for hyperphosphatemia

drugs for “no less than 2 years” based on the drug’s Average Sales Price, or ASP, that will be in addition to the base

The incremental cost associated with the addition of this class of drugs into the bundle will be assessed in the final year of

the TDAPA and the base rate will be adjusted accordingly, and no further separate payment will be provided.

Although there are several

details that need further clarification, including precise timing related to receiving codes to allow for reimbursement under TDAPA,

which are typically assigned on a quarterly basis, the rule provides some support for our assumption that all hyperphosphatemia drugs,

including Renazorb, will be included in the ESRD PPS bundle and will be eligible for separate payment initially under TDAPA.

The containment of healthcare costs also has

become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort.

Governments have

shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements

for substitution of generic products.

Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies

in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved

Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time.

Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement

status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage

policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment

for a product also involves challenges.

Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries.

Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product

and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of a product to other available therapies.

The conduct of such

a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes

vary widely from country to country.

Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed.

Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular drug candidate to

currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval.

the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance

systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use.

EU member states may approve a specific

price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product

on the market.

Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes

and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions.

Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of

discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially

in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union.

The downward pressure on health care

costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense.

As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the

entry of new products.

Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations

may continue after reimbursement has been obtained.

Reference pricing used by various EU member states, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage

between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices.

There can be no assurance that any country that has price

controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any

products, if approved in those countries.

Dialysis Organizations Protocols

Dialysis organizations have their own formularies

that list primary or preferred therapeutic options based on contracting status with drug manufacturers.

While a prescriber may make their

own independent decision to prescribe what they determine most appropriate for a given patient, any non-formulary therapeutic options

are only available through an exception process based on clinical need.

Similar to how payor coverage may affect the sales of a product,

formulary status within dialysis organizations may affect what products are prescribed within that specific organization.

if a product is not on a formulary, the prescribers within that organization may be less likely to prescribe that product or may have

a difficult time prescribing that product, resulting in less sales.

Further, one dialysis organization’s determination to add a

product to their formulary does not assure that other dialysis organizations will also add the product to theirs.

There is always a risk

a dialysis organization will not contract with a drug manufacturer for a specific product, resulting in that product not being on that

organization’s formulary.

Additionally, dialysis organizations typically assess a product’s efficacy before adding it to

their formulary.

Their process for assessing a product may differ among organizations and the timing of such assessment could delay adding

such treatment to formulary, further affecting product sales.

Our ability to generate product revenue and achieve

profitability depends on the overall success of Renazorb , UNI-494, and any current or future product candidates, including those that

may be in-licensed or acquired, which depends on several factors, including:

adequate or favorable pricing and reimbursement from private and governmental payors for

UNI-494, and any other product or product candidate, including those that may be in-licensed

and maintaining market acceptance of Renazorb, UNI-494, and any other product candidate,

including those that may be in-licensed or acquired;

size of any market in which Renazorb, UNI-494, and any other product or product candidate,

including those that may be in-licensed or acquired, receives approval and obtaining adequate

market share in those markets;

timing and scope of marketing approvals for Renazorb, UNI-494, and any other product candidate,

if approved, including those that may be in-licensed or acquired;

or perceived advantages or disadvantages of our products or product candidates as compared

to alternative treatments, including their respective safety, tolerability and efficacy profiles,

the potential convenience and ease of administration and cost;

● maintaining

an acceptable safety and tolerability profile of our approved products, including the frequency

and severity of any side effects;

willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe

these therapies, based, in part, on their perception of our clinical trial data and/or the

actual or perceived safety, tolerability and efficacy profile;

● establishing

and maintaining supply and manufacturing relationships with third parties that can provide

adequate supplies of products that are compliant with good manufacturing practices, or GMPs,

to support the clinical development and the market demand for Renazorb, UNI-494, and any

other product and product candidate, including those that may be in-licensed or acquired;

and future restrictions or limitations on our approved or future indications and patient

populations or other adverse regulatory actions or in the event that the FDA requires Risk

Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, or REMS, or risk management plans that use restrictive

risk minimization strategies;

effectiveness of our sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution strategies and operations;

effectively with any products for the same or similar indications as our products;

● maintaining,

protecting and expanding our portfolio of intellectual property rights, including patents

and trade secrets;

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the above factors, including the disproportionate impact

of the COVID-19 pandemic on CKD patients, the adverse impact on the phosphate binder market

in which we compete, and the limitation of our sales professionals to meet in person with

healthcare professionals as the result of travel restrictions or limitations on access for

non-patients.

Risks Related to Commercialization

Our business is substantially dependent on the

commercial success of Renazorb, if approved.

If we are unable to successfully commercialize Auryxia, our results or operations and financial

condition will be materially harmed.

Our ability to generate revenue depends on our ability to execute on our commercialization plans,

and the size of the market for, and the level of market acceptance of, Renazorb and any other product or product candidate, including

those that may be in-licensed or acquired.

If the size of any market for which a product or product candidate is approved decreases or

is smaller than we anticipate, our revenue and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Market acceptance is also

critical to our ability to generate significant product revenue.

Any product may achieve only limited market acceptance or none at all.

If Renazorb, or any of our product candidates that is approved, is not accepted by the market to the extent that we expect or market

acceptance decreases, we may not be able to generate significant product revenue and our business would be materially harmed.

acceptance of Renazorb or any other approved product depends on a number of factors, including:

availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement by and the availability of discounts,

rebates and price concessions from third party payors, pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs,

and governmental authorities;

safety and efficacy of the product, as demonstrated in clinical trials and in the post-marketing

prevalence and complications of the disease treated by the product;

clinical indications for which the product is approved and the product label approved by

regulatory authorities, including any warnings or limitations that may be required on the

label as a consequence of potential safety risks associated with the product;

countries in which marketing approvals are obtained;

claims we and our collaborators are able to make regarding the safety and efficacy of the

success of our physician and patient communications and education programs;

by physicians and patients of the product as a safe and effective treatment and the willingness

of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe new

cost, safety and efficacy of the product in relation to alternative treatments;

timing of receipt of marketing approvals and product launch relative to competing products

and potential generic entrants;

convenience and ease of administration;

frequency and severity of adverse side effects;

or adverse publicity about our products or favorable or adverse publicity about competing

effectiveness of our and our collaborators’ sales, marketing and distribution efforts.

In order to market Renazorb and any other approved

product, we intend to invest in sales and marketing, which will require substantial effort and significant management and financial resources.

Additionally, training a sales force to successfully sell and market a new commercial product is expensive and time-consuming and could

delay any commercial launch of such product candidate.

We may underestimate the size of the sales force required for a successful product

launch and we may need to expand our sales force earlier and at a higher cost than we anticipated.

We will devote significant effort,

in particular, to recruiting individuals with experience in the sales and marketing of pharmaceutical products.

Competition for personnel

with these skills is significant and retaining qualified personnel with experience in our industry is difficult.

As a result, we may

not be able to retain our existing employees or hire new employees quickly enough to meet our needs.

At the same time, we may face high

turnover, requiring us to expend time and resources to source, train and integrate new employees.

There are risks involved with building

our own sales and marketing capabilities, including the following:

inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing

lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive

disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines, and

and expenses associated with maintaining our own sales and marketing organization.

If we are unable to build our own sales and marketing

capabilities, we will not be successful in commercializing Renazorb, UNI-494, and any other product candidate that may be approved.

if we are unable to maintain our arrangements with third parties with respect to sales and marketing, if we are unsuccessful in entering

into additional arrangements with third parties to sell and market our products or we are unable to do so on terms that are favorable

to us, or if such third parties are unable to carry out their obligations under such arrangements, it will be difficult to successfully

commercialize our product and product candidates, including Renazorb, if approved.

Our, or our partners’, failure to obtain

or maintain adequate coverage, pricing and reimbursement for Renazorb, if approved, or any other future approved products, could have

a material adverse effect on our or our collaboration partners’ ability to sell such approved products profitably and otherwise

have a material adverse impact on our business.

Market acceptance and sales of any approved products,

including Renazorb and UNI-494, depends significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third party payors

and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.

Governmental authorities, third party payors, and PBMs decide

which drugs they will cover, as well as establish formularies or implement other mechanisms to manage utilization of products and determine

reimbursement levels.

We cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for Renazorb, UNI-494, or any of our

potential future products.

Even if we obtain coverage for an approved product, third party payors may not establish adequate reimbursement

amounts, which may reduce the demand for our product and prompt us to have to reduce pricing for the product.

If reimbursement is not

available or is limited, we may not be able to commercialize certain of our products.

Coverage and reimbursement by a governmental authority,

third-party payor or PBM may depend upon a number of factors, including the determination that use of a product is:

covered benefit under the health plan;

effective and medically necessary;

● appropriate

for the specific patient;

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval

for a product from a governmental authority, PBM or a third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could require us

to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor.

In the United States,

there are multiple governmental authorities, PBMs and third-party payors with varying coverage and reimbursement levels for pharmaceutical

products, and the timing of commencement of reimbursement by a governmental payor can be dependent on the assignment of codes via the

Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System, which codes are assigned on a quarterly basis.

Within Medicare, for oral drugs dispensed

by pharmacies and also administered in facilities, coverage and reimbursement may vary depending on the setting.

CMS, local Medicare

administrative contractors, Medicare Part D plans and/or PBMs operating on behalf of Medicare Part D plans, may have some responsibility

for determining the medical necessity of such drugs, and therefore coverage, for different patients.

Different reimbursement methodologies

may apply, and CMS may have some discretion in interpreting their application in certain settings.

Additionally, we may be required to

enter into contracts with third party payors and/or PBMs offering rebates or discounts on our products in order to obtain favorable formulary

status and we may not be able to agree upon commercially reasonable terms with such third party payors or PBMs, or provide data sufficient

to obtain favorable coverage and reimbursement for many reasons, including that we may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies

with more extensive product lines.

We currently believe it is likely that Renazorb, if approved, will be reimbursed using the Transitional

Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, or TDAPA, followed by inclusion in the bundled reimbursement model for Medicare beneficiaries.

that obtain dialysis through commercial insurance during the 30-month coordination period or through Medicaid prior to Medicare becoming

primary payer after 90 days, patients may access Renazorb through contracts we negotiate with third party payors for reimbursement of

Renazorb, which would be subject to the risks and uncertainties described above.

Additionally, applying for and obtaining reimbursement

under the TDAPA may take an undetermined amount of time following approval, which will affect adoption, uptake and product revenue for

Renazorb during that time, and if there are updates to the TDAPA rule that decrease the basis for reimbursement or eligibility criteria

during the transition period or if the TDAPA is eliminated, then our profitability may be adversely affected.

Further, if Renazorb is

approved in the United States and included in the fixed reimbursement model for a bundle of dialysis services, or the bundle, we would

be required to enter into contracts to supply Renazorb to specific dialysis providers, instead of through distributors.

The dialysis market is unique and is dominated

by two providers:

DaVita and Fresenius, which account for a vast majority of the dialysis population in the United States.

how payor coverage may affect the sales of a product, formulary status within dialysis organizations may affect what products are prescribed

within that specific organization.

Therefore, if a product is not on a formulary, the prescribers within that organization may be less

likely to prescribe that product or may have a difficult time prescribing that product, resulting in less sales.

Further, one dialysis

organization’s determination to add a product to their formulary does not assure that other dialysis organizations will also add

the product to theirs.

There is always a risk a dialysis organization will not contract with a drug manufacturer for a specific product,

resulting in that product not being on that organization’s formulary.

If any dialysis organization does not add Renzorb, to the

formulary, our business may be materially harmed.

In addition, we may be unable to sell Renazorb to dialysis providers on a profitable

basis if CMS significantly reduces the level of reimbursement for dialysis services and providers choose to use alternative therapies

or look to re-negotiate their contracts with us.

Adequate coverage and reimbursement of our products by government and private insurance

plans are central to patient and provider acceptance of any products for which we receive marketing approval.

Further, in many countries

outside the United States, a drug must be approved for reimbursement before it can be marketed or sold in that country.

In some cases,

the prices that we intend to charge for our products are also subject to approval.

Approval by the EMA or another regulatory authority

does not ensure approval by reimbursement authorities in that jurisdiction, and approval by one reimbursement authority outside the United

States does not ensure approval by any other reimbursement authorities.

However, the failure to obtain reimbursement in one jurisdiction

may negatively impact our ability to obtain reimbursement in another jurisdiction.

We may not be able to obtain such reimbursement approvals

on a timely basis, if at all, and favorable pricing in certain countries depends on a number of factors, some of which are outside of

In addition, if Renazorb is approved outside of the United States, we plan to rely on a partner to obtain approval by reimbursement

authorities outside the United States.

If we are unsuccessful or delayed in entering into an agreement with a new partner, the launch

of Renazorb following approval outside the United States may be delayed, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

We expect to face substantial competition,

which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before, or more successfully than, we do.

The development and commercialization of new

drugs is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change.

Our future success depends on our ability to demonstrate

and maintain a competitive advantage with respect to the development and commercialization of Renazorb, and any other product or product

candidate, including those that may be in-licensed or acquired.

Renazorb will compete in the hyperphosphatemia market in the United States

with other FDA-approved phosphate binders such as Renagel® (sevelamer hydrochloride) and Renvela® (sevelamer carbonate), both

marketed by Sanofi, PhosLo® and Phoslyra® (calcium acetate), marketed by Fresenius Medical Care North America, Fosrenol®

(lanthanum carbonate), marketed by Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc, Velphoro® (sucroferric oxyhydroxide), marketed by Fresenius Medical

Care North America, and Auryxia (ferric citrate), marketed by Akebia Therapeutics, as well as over-the-counter calcium carbonate products

such as TUMS® and metal-based options such as aluminum, lanthanum and magnesium.

Most of the phosphate binders listed above are now

also available in generic forms.

In addition, other agents are in development, including OPKO Health Inc.’s Alpharen™ Tablets

(fermagate tablets) and Ardelyx, Inc.’s tenapanor (which is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with irritable

bowel syndrome with constipation, and for which the FDA granted an appeal in the fourth quarter of 2022 that will allow Ardelyx to resubmit

a new drug application in 2023 with respect to the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis), that may impact

the market for Renazorb.

Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant

As a result of all of these factors, our competitors

may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or marketing approval, or discovering, developing and commercializing competitive products,

before, or more effectively than, we do.

If we are not able to compete effectively against potential competitors, our business will not

grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

Healthcare Reform

addition to the changes brought about by the ACA, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted, including aggregate reductions

of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year and reduced payments to several types of Medicare providers.

Moreover, there

has recently 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.

Any proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation

to become effective.

There can be no assurance that Congress or the Biden Administration intend to provide for such authorizations.

Biden administration has also undertaken other actions – and may continue to do so – signaling a change in policy from the

prior Trump administration.

Such activities include Executive Order 13992, revoking several Trump administration orders that had certain

deregulatory effects, and a letter to the United Nations retracting the United States’ intent to withdraw from the World Health

Organization.

Other actions by the Biden administration and/or legislation passed by the new Congress could further impact the pharmaceutical

and broader healthcare industries in ways that are difficult to predict but that could also materially impact our operations.

predict what other healthcare reforms will ultimately be implemented at the federal or state level or the effect of any future legislation,

executive action or regulation and, accordingly, face uncertainties that might result from additional reforms.

the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product

pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure

and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Pharmaceutical

companies are subject to various federal and state laws that are intended to combat health care fraud and abuse and that govern certain

of our business practices, especially our interactions with third-party payors, healthcare providers, patients, customers and potential

customers through sales and marketing or research and development activities.

These include anti-kickback laws, false claims laws, sunshine

laws, privacy laws and FDA regulation of advertising and promotion of pharmaceutical products.

Anti-kickback

laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, make it a criminal offense knowingly and willfully to offer, pay, solicit, or receive

any remuneration to induce or reward referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service

reimbursable by, a federal health care program (including our products).

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply

to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other.

Although there are several statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the

exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or

recommending 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 to have committed a violation.

Moreover, 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 False Claims Act.

The penalties for violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute include administrative

civil money penalties, imprisonment for up to five years, fines of up to $25,000 per violation and possible exclusion from federal healthcare

programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, prohibit knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented,

claims for payment to the federal government (including Medicare and Medicaid) that are false or fraudulent (and, under the Federal False

Claims Act, a claim is deemed false or fraudulent if it is made pursuant to an illegal kickback).

Manufacturers can be held liable under

these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate

billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label.

Actions under the False Claims Act may be brought by the

Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government.

Violations of the False Claims Act can

result in significant monetary penalties, including fines ranging from $11,181 to $22,363 for each false claim, and treble damages.

federal government is using the False Claims Act, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution

of pharmaceutical companies throughout the country, for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and

other improper sales and marketing practices.

The government has obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the

False Claims Act in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes.

In addition, companies have been

forced to implement extensive corrective action plans and have often become subject to consent decrees or corporate integrity agreements,

severely restricting the manner in which they conduct their business.

Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements,

it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’

compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws.

Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law prohibits, among other things, the offering or transferring of remuneration to a Medicare or Medicaid

beneficiary that the person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular supplier of

Medicare or Medicaid payable items or services.

Noncompliance can result in civil money penalties of up to $15,270 for each wrongful

act, assessment of three times the amount claimed for each item or service and exclusion from the federal healthcare programs.

criminal statutes prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare

benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program,

willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering

up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for

healthcare benefits, items or services.

Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the ACA amended the intent standard for certain healthcare

fraud statutes under HIPAA such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to

violate it in order to have committed a violation.

state and foreign laws and regulations, including state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to products and services reimbursed

by non-governmental third-party payors, including commercial payors.

Additionally, there are state laws that require pharmaceutical companies

to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by

the federal government or that otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers as well as state and foreign laws

that require drug manufacturers to report marketing expenditures or pricing information.

laws, including the Federal Open Payments law enacted as part of the ACA, require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose payments and

other transfers of value to physicians and certain other health care providers or professionals, and in the case of some state sunshine

laws, restrict or prohibit certain such payments.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to submit reports to the government by the

90 th day of each calendar year.

Failure to submit the required information may result in civil monetary penalties of

up to an aggregate of $165,786 per year (or up to an aggregate of $1.105 million per year for “knowing failures”) for all

payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests not reported in an annual submission, and may result in liability under

other federal laws or regulations.

Certain states and foreign governments require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and

other remuneration to physicians.

laws, such as the privacy regulations implemented under HIPAA, restrict covered entities from using or disclosing protected health information.

Covered entities commonly include physicians, hospitals and health insurers from which we may seek to acquire data to aid in our research,

development, sales and marketing activities.

Although pharmaceutical manufacturers are not covered entities under HIPAA, our ability

to acquire or use protected health information from covered entities may be affected by privacy laws.

Specifically, HIPAA, as amended

by HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes specified

requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information.

Among other things,

HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent

contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with

providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity.

HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed

against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil

actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated

with pursuing federal civil actions.

In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances,

many of which differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts.

FDA regulates the sale and marketing of prescription drug products and, among other things, prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from

making false or misleading statements and from promoting products for unapproved uses.

There has been an increase in government enforcement

efforts at both the federal and state level.

Numerous cases have been brought against pharmaceutical manufacturers under the Federal

False Claims Act, alleging, among other things, that certain sales or marketing-related practices violate the Anti-Kickback Statute or

the FDA’s regulations, and many of these cases have resulted in settlement agreements under which the companies were required to

change certain practices, pay substantial fines and operate under the supervision of a federally appointed monitor for a period of years.

Due to the breadth of these laws and their implementing regulations and the absence of guidance in some cases, it is possible that our

practices might be challenged by government authorities.

Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by civil and criminal sanctions

including fines, civil monetary penalties, as well as the possibility of exclusion of our products from payment by federal health care

Price Reporting

regulations regarding reporting and payment obligations are complex, and we are continually evaluating the methods we use to calculate

and report the amounts owed with respect to Medicaid and other government pricing programs.

Our calculations are subject to review and

challenge by various government agencies and authorities, and it is possible that any such review could result either in material changes

to the method used for calculating the amounts owed to such agency or the amounts themselves.

Because the process for making these calculations,

and our judgments supporting these calculations, involve subjective decisions, these calculations are subject to audit.

that a government authority challenges or finds ambiguity with regard to our report of payments, such authority may impose civil and

criminal sanctions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

From time to time we conduct routine reviews of our government

pricing calculations.

These reviews may have an impact on government price reporting and rebate calculations used to comply with various

government regulations regarding reporting and payment obligations.

governments and third-party payors reimburse the purchase of certain prescription drugs based on a drug’s AWP.

In the past several

years, state and federal government agencies have conducted ongoing investigations of manufacturers’ reporting practices with respect

to AWP, which they have suggested have led to excessive payments by state and federal government agencies for prescription drugs.

and numerous other pharmaceutical companies have been named as defendants in various state and federal court actions alleging improper

or fraudulent practices related to the reporting of AWP.

Pedigree Laws

and federal governments have proposed or passed various drug pedigree laws which can require the tracking of all transactions involving

prescription drugs from the manufacturer to the pharmacy (or other dispensing) level.

Companies are required to maintain records documenting

the chain of custody of prescription drug products beginning with the purchase of such products from the manufacturer.

Compliance with

these pedigree laws requires implementation of extensive tracking systems as well as heightened documentation and coordination with customers

and manufacturers.

While we fully intend to comply with these laws, there is uncertainty about future changes in legislation and government

enforcement of these laws.

Failure to comply could result in fines or penalties, as well as loss of business that could have a material

adverse effect on our financial results.

Regulation of Patent Litigation Settlements and Authorized Generic Arrangements

part of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, companies are required to file with the U.S.

Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the U.S.

Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) certain types of agreements entered into

between brand and generic pharmaceutical companies related to the settlement of patent litigation or manufacture, marketing and sale

of generic versions of branded drugs.

This requirement could affect the manner in which generic drug manufacturers resolve intellectual

property litigation and other disputes with brand pharmaceutical companies and could result generally in an increase in private-party

litigation against pharmaceutical companies or additional investigations or proceedings by the FTC or other governmental authorities.

federal government, various states and localities have laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of pharmaceuticals, as well

as regulations dealing with the substitution of generic drugs for branded drugs.

Our operations are also subject to regulation, licensing

requirements and inspection by the states and localities in which our operations are located or in which we conduct business.

of our activities are also subject to FTC enforcement actions.

The FTC also enforces a variety of antitrust and consumer protection laws

designed to ensure that the nation’s markets function competitively, are vigorous, efficient and free of undue restrictions.

state, local and foreign laws of general applicability, such as laws regulating working conditions, also govern us.

addition, we are subject to numerous and increasingly stringent federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations concerning,

among other things, the generation, handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of toxic and hazardous substances, the

discharge of pollutants into the air and water and the cleanup of contamination.

We are required to maintain and comply with environmental

permits and controls for some of our operations, and these permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation by the issuing

Our environmental capital expenditures and costs for environmental compliance may increase in the future as a result of

changes in environmental laws and regulations or increased manufacturing activities at any of our facilities.

We could incur significant

costs or liabilities as a result of any failure to comply with environmental laws, including fines, penalties, third-party claims and

the costs of undertaking a clean-up at a current or former site or at a site to which our wastes were transported.

In addition, we have

grown in part by acquisition, and our diligence may not have identified environmental impacts from historical operations at sites we

have acquired in the past or may acquire in the future.

In the United States, there have been a number

of federal and state proposals during the last several years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical products, government control and

other changes to the healthcare system of the United States.

It is uncertain what other legislative proposals may be adopted or what

actions federal, state, or private payors may take in response to any healthcare reform proposals or legislation.

We cannot predict the

effect such reforms may have on our business, and no assurance can be given that any such reforms will not have a material adverse effect.

By way of example, in March 2010, the Affordable

Care Act (the “ACA”), was signed into law, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for drug

products under government health care programs.

The law includes measures that (i) significantly increase Medicaid rebates through both

the expansion of the program and significant increases in rebates, (ii) substantially expand the Public Health System (340B) program

to allow other entities to purchase prescription drugs at substantial discounts, (iii) extend the Medicaid rebate rate to a significant

portion of Managed Medicaid enrollees, (iv) assess a rebate on Medicaid Part D spending in the coverage gap for branded and authorized

generic prescription drugs, and (v) levy a significant excise tax on the industry to fund the healthcare reform.

In addition to the changes brought about by the

ACA, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2%

per fiscal year and reduced payments to several types of Medicare providers.

Moreover, there has recently 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

Any proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective.

There can be no assurance

that Congress or the Biden Administration intend to provide for such authorizations.

The Biden administration has also undertaken

other actions – and may continue to do so – signaling a change in policy from the prior Trump administration.

Such activities

include Executive Order 13992, revoking several Trump administration orders that had certain deregulatory effects, and a letter to the

United Nations retracting the United States’ intent to withdraw from the World Health Organization.

Other actions by the Biden

administration and/or legislation passed by the new Congress could further impact the pharmaceutical and broader healthcare industries

in ways that are difficult to predict but that could also materially impact our operations.

We cannot predict what other healthcare reforms

will ultimately be implemented at the federal or state level or the effect of any future legislation, executive action or regulation

and, accordingly, face uncertainties that might result from additional reforms.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly

passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement

constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some

cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Healthcare Regulations

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to various

federal and state laws that are intended to combat health care fraud and abuse and that govern certain of our business practices, especially

our interactions with third-party payors, healthcare providers, patients, customers and potential customers through sales and marketing

or research and development activities.

These include anti-kickback laws, false claims laws, sunshine laws, privacy laws and FDA regulation

of advertising and promotion of pharmaceutical products.

Anti-kickback laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback

Statute, make it a criminal offense knowingly and willfully to offer, pay, solicit, or receive any remuneration to induce or reward referral

of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service reimbursable by, a federal health care program

(including our products).

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers

on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other.

Although there are several statutory exceptions and

regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and

practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending 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 to have committed a violation.

Moreover, 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 False Claims

The penalties for violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute include administrative civil money penalties, imprisonment for up

to five years, fines of up to $25,000 per violation and possible exclusion from federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

The federal civil and criminal false claims laws,

including the civil False Claims Act, prohibit knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment to the federal government

(including Medicare and Medicaid) that are false or fraudulent (and, under the Federal False Claims Act, a claim is deemed false or fraudulent

if it is made pursuant to an illegal kickback).

Manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause”

the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting

a product off-label.

Actions under the False Claims Act may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual

in the name of the government.

Violations of the False Claims Act can result in significant monetary penalties, including fines ranging

from $13,508 to $27,018 for each false claim, and treble damages.

The federal government is using the False Claims Act, and the accompanying

threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical companies throughout the country, for example,

in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other improper sales and marketing practices.

The government has

obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the False Claims Act in addition to individual criminal convictions

under applicable criminal statutes.

In addition, companies have been forced to implement extensive corrective action plans and have often

become subject to consent decrees or corporate integrity agreements, severely restricting the manner in which they conduct their business.

Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial

resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws.

The Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law prohibits,

among other things, the offering or transferring of remuneration to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary that the person knows or should

know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular supplier of Medicare or Medicaid payable items or services.

Noncompliance can result in civil money penalties ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 per violation and exclusion from the federal healthcare

Federal criminal statutes prohibit, among other

actions, knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private

third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal

investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any

materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or

Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the ACA amended the intent standard for certain healthcare fraud statutes under HIPAA

such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have

committed a violation.

Analogous state and foreign laws and regulations,

including state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to products and services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors,

including commercial payors.

Additionally, there are state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical

industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or that otherwise

restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers as well as state and foreign laws that require drug manufacturers to report

marketing expenditures or pricing information and register sales representatives.

Sunshine laws, including the Federal Open Payments

law enacted as part of the ACA, require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose payments and other transfers of value to physicians

and certain other health care providers or professionals, and in the case of some state sunshine laws, restrict or prohibit certain such

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to submit reports to the government by the 90 th day of each calendar

Failure to submit the required information may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $100,000 per year, adjusted

for inflation (or up to an aggregate of $1 million per year, adjusted for inflation for “knowing failures”) for all payments,

transfers of value or ownership or investment interests not reported in an annual submission, and may result in liability under other

federal laws or regulations.

Certain states and foreign governments require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other

remuneration to physicians.

Privacy laws, such as the privacy regulations

implemented under HIPAA, restrict covered entities from using or disclosing protected health information.

Covered entities commonly include

physicians, hospitals and health insurers from which we may seek to acquire data to aid in our research, development, sales and marketing

Although pharmaceutical manufacturers are not covered entities under HIPAA, our ability to acquire or use protected health

information from covered entities may be affected by privacy laws.

Specifically, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and their respective implementing

regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy,

security and transmission of individually identifiable health information.

Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and

security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered

entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf

of a covered entity.

HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates

and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal

courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other

in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The FDA regulates the sale and marketing of prescription

drug products and, among other things, prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from making false or misleading statements and from promoting

products for unapproved uses.

There has been an increase in government enforcement efforts at both the federal and state level.

cases have been brought against pharmaceutical manufacturers under the Federal False Claims Act, alleging, among other things, that certain

sales or marketing-related practices violate the Anti-Kickback Statute or the FDA’s regulations, and many of these cases have resulted

in settlement agreements under which the companies were required to change certain practices, pay substantial fines and operate under

the supervision of a federally appointed monitor for a period of years.

Due to the breadth of these laws and their implementing regulations

and the absence of guidance in some cases, it is possible that our practices might be challenged by government authorities.

of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by civil and criminal sanctions including fines, civil monetary penalties, as well as the possibility

of exclusion of our products from payment by federal health care programs.

Government Price Reporting

Government regulations regarding reporting and

payment obligations are complex, and we are continually evaluating the methods we use to calculate and report the amounts owed with respect

to Medicaid and other government pricing programs.

Our calculations are subject to review and challenge by various government agencies

and authorities, and it is possible that any such review could result either in material changes to the method used for calculating the

amounts owed to such agency or the amounts themselves.

Because the process for making these calculations, and our judgments supporting

these calculations, involve subjective decisions, these calculations are subject to audit.

In the event that a government authority challenges

or finds ambiguity with regard to our report of payments, such authority may impose civil and criminal sanctions, which could have a

material adverse effect on our business.

From time to time we conduct routine reviews of our government pricing calculations.

These reviews

may have an impact on government price reporting and rebate calculations used to comply with various government regulations regarding

reporting and payment obligations.

Many governments and third-party payors reimburse

the purchase of certain prescription drugs based on a drug’s average wholesale price (AWP).

In the past several years, state and

federal government agencies have conducted ongoing investigations of manufacturers’ reporting practices with respect to AWP, which

they have suggested have led to excessive payments by state and federal government agencies for prescription drugs.

We and numerous other

pharmaceutical companies have been named as defendants in various state and federal court actions alleging improper or fraudulent practices

related to the reporting of AWP.

Drug Pedigree Laws

State and federal governments have proposed or

passed various drug pedigree laws which can require the tracking of all transactions involving prescription drugs from the manufacturer

to the pharmacy (or other dispensing) level.

Companies are required to maintain records documenting the chain of custody of prescription

drug products beginning with the purchase of such products from the manufacturer.

Compliance with these pedigree laws requires implementation

of extensive tracking systems as well as heightened documentation and coordination with customers and manufacturers.

While we fully intend

to comply with these laws, there is uncertainty about future changes in legislation and government enforcement of these laws.

to comply could result in fines or penalties, as well as loss of business that could have a material adverse effect on our financial

Federal Regulation of Patent Litigation Settlements

and Authorized Generic Arrangements

As part of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement

and Modernization Act of 2003, companies are required to file with the U.S.

Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the U.S.

Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) certain types of agreements entered into between brand and generic pharmaceutical companies

related to the settlement of patent litigation or manufacture, marketing and sale of generic versions of branded drugs.

This requirement

could affect the manner in which generic drug manufacturers resolve intellectual property litigation and other disputes with brand pharmaceutical

companies and could result generally in an increase in private-party litigation against pharmaceutical companies or additional investigations

or proceedings by the FTC or other governmental authorities.

federal government, various states and

localities have laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of pharmaceuticals, as well as regulations dealing with the substitution

of generic drugs for branded drugs.

Our operations are also subject to regulation, licensing requirements and inspection by the states

and localities in which our operations are located or in which we conduct business.

Certain of our activities are also subject to

FTC enforcement actions.

The FTC also enforces a variety of antitrust and consumer protection laws designed to ensure that the nation’s

markets function competitively, are vigorous, efficient and free of undue restrictions.

Federal, state, local and foreign laws of general

applicability, such as laws regulating working conditions, also govern us.

In addition, we are subject to numerous and increasingly

stringent federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations concerning, among other things, the generation, handling, storage,

transportation, treatment and disposal of toxic and hazardous substances, the discharge of pollutants into the air and water and the

cleanup of contamination.

We are required to maintain and comply with environmental permits and controls for some of our operations,

and these permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation by the issuing authorities.

Our environmental capital expenditures

and costs for environmental compliance may increase in the future as a result of changes in environmental laws and regulations or increased

manufacturing activities at any of our facilities.

We could incur significant costs or liabilities as a result of any failure to comply

with environmental laws, including fines, penalties, third-party claims and the costs of undertaking a clean-up at a current or former

site or at a site to which our wastes were transported.

In addition, we have grown in part by acquisition, and our diligence may not

have identified environmental impacts from historical operations at sites we have acquired in the past or may acquire in the future.

As of March 30, 2023, we had 12 full-time employees

3 unchanged sentences

our employees.

Our Corporate

were incorporated as a Delaware corporation on August 18, 2016.

Our principal executive offices are located at 4300 El Camino Real, Suite

210, Los Altos, CA 94022 and our telephone number is (650) 351-4495.

website address is http://www.unicycive.com .

The contents of, or information accessible through, our website are not part

of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and our website address is included in this document as an inactive textual reference only.

our filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all

amendments to those reports, available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such reports with,

or furnish such reports to, the SEC.

The public may read and copy the materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference

Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.

The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling

the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.

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 .

The information contained in the SEC’s website

is not intended to be a part of this filing.

Our Corporate History

We were incorporated as a Delaware corporation

on August 18, 2016.

Our principal executive offices are located at 4300 El Camino Real, Suite 210, Los Altos, CA 94022 and our telephone

number is (650) 351-4495.

Available Information

Our website address is http://www.unicycive.com .

The contents of, or information accessible through, our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and our website address

is included in this document as an inactive textual reference only.

We make our filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on

Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports, available free of charge

on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC.

The public may

read and copy the materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.

The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.

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 .

The information contained in the SEC’s website is not intended to be a part of this filing.

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-K

Item 1. Business