Applied Therapeutics Inc. - Annual Report: 2019 (Form 10-K)

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☒ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

OR

☐TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                    to

Commission file number 001‑38898

Applied Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (212)‑220‑9226

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act.

 

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The approximate aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based upon the last sale price of the registrant’s common stock on the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, June 30, 2019 , as reported on the NASDAQ Global Market, was approximately $68,000,000. This calculation excludes approximately 8,800,000 shares held by directors, executive officers and 10% or greater shareholders of the registrant. Exclusion of these shares does not constitute a determination that each such person is an affiliate of the registrant.

As of March 12, 2020, the total number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s Common Stock was 21,969,277 shares, net of treasury shares.

Documents Incorporated by Reference:

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the registrant’s 2020 annual meeting, to be filed within 120 days after the the close of the registrant’s fiscal year, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

PART I

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD- LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 about us and our industry that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future financial condition, future operations, projected costs, prospects, plans, objectives of management and expected market growth, are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “aim,” “anticipate,” “assume,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “design,” “due,” “estimate,” “expect,” “goal,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “plan,” “predict,” “positioned,” “potential,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would” and other similar expressions that are predictions of or indicate future events and future trends, or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology.

We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including risks described in the section titled “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

The foregoing list of risks is not exhaustive. Other sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K may include additional factors that could harm our business and financial performance. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risk factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for our management to predict all risk factors nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in, or implied by, any forward-looking statements.

        In light of the significant uncertainties in these forward-looking statements, you should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that we have a reasonable basis for each forward-looking statement contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance or events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur at all. You should refer to the sections titled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for a discussion of important factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements. Furthermore, if our forward-looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

ITEM 1.         BUSINESS.

Overview

We are a clinical‑stage biopharmaceutical company developing a pipeline of novel product candidates against validated molecular targets in indications of high unmet medical need. We focus on molecules and pathways whose role in the disease process is well known based on prior research, but have previously failed to yield successful products due to poor efficacy and tolerability. Our unique approach to drug development leverages recent technological advances to design improved drugs, employs early use of biomarkers to confirm biological activity and focuses on abbreviated regulatory pathways. Our first molecular target is aldose reductase, or AR, an enzyme that converts glucose to sorbitol under oxidative stress conditions, and is implicated in multiple diseases. Prior attempts to inhibit this enzyme were hindered by nonselective, nonspecific inhibition, which resulted in limited efficacy and significant off‑target safety effects. The detrimental consequences of aberrant AR activation have been well established by decades of prior research. Our AR inhibitor, or ARI, program currently includes three small molecules, which are all designed to be potent and selective ARIs, and are engineered to have unique tissue permeability profiles to target different disease states, including diabetic complications, heart disease and a rare pediatric metabolic disease. Applying our strategy from our ARI program, we have also developed a program targeting selective inhibition of phosphatidylinositol 3‑kinase, or PI3K, subunits that has resulted in an early‑stage oncology pipeline. The result of this unique multifaceted approach to drug development is a portfolio of highly specific and selective product candidates that we believe are significantly de‑risked and can move quickly through the development process.

Our lead product candidate, AT‑007, is a novel central nervous system, or CNS, penetrant ARI that we are developing for the treatment of galactosemia, a devastating rare pediatric metabolic disease that affects how the body processes a simple sugar called galactose, and for which there is no known cure or approved treatment available. High levels of galactose circulating in the blood and tissues of galactosemia patients enable AR to convert galactose to a toxic metabolite, galactitol, which results in long‑term complications ranging from CNS dysfunction to cataracts. We have demonstrated in an animal model of galactosemia that treatment with AT‑007 reduces toxic galactitol levels and prevents disease complications. We believe that galactosemia may qualify for accelerated approval, as well as for the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher, or RPD‑PRV, program. Additionally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, recently released draft guidance for industry on drug development for low prevalence, slowly progressing rare metabolic diseases, for which we believe galactosemia qualifies. The guidance allows for a biomarker‑based development program if clinical efficacy and a link to a relevant biomarker can be demonstrated in an

animal model of disease. We received Orphan Designation for AT‑007 in galactosemia in May 2019. In June 2019 we initiated a pivotal Phase 1/2 clinical study in healthy volunteers and adults with galactosemia examining safety, pharmacokinetics and biomarker effects of AT‑007. In healthy volunteers, AT‑007 was found to be well tolerated at all doses tested (5mg/kg to 20mg/kg) and pharmacokinetics were compatible with once daily oral dosing.

 

The study is a double‑blind placebo‑controlled trial evaluating safety and pharmacokinetics of AT‑007 in healthy volunteers, as well as safety, pharmacokinetics and biomarker effects in adult galactosemia patients over 28 days of once daily oral dosing. The key biomarker outcome of the study was reduction in galactitol, an aberrant toxic metabolite of galactose, formed by AR in galactosemia patients.

 

In January 2020, we announced positive topline results. AT‑007 treatment resulted in a statistically significant and robust reduction in plasma galactitol versus placebo in adult galactosemia patients. Reductions in galactitol were dose dependent, with higher concentrations of AT‑007 resulting in a greater magnitude of reduction in galactitol. At the highest dose tested (20mg/kg), AT‑007 significantly reduced plasma galactitol 45‑54% from baseline versus placebo (with a p value of less than 0.01). Galactitol reduction was rapid and sustained over time. No substantial change from baseline was observed in placebo treated patients. AT‑007 was well tolerated, with no drug‑related adverse events noted to date in galactosemia patients or in the 72 healthy volunteers treated in Part 1 of the trial.

 

We will continue to characterize AT‑007 long‑term safety in adult galactosemia patients and intend to initiate a pediatric study.

 

Our second product candidate, AT‑001, is a novel ARI with broad systemic exposure and peripheral nerve permeability that we are developing for the treatment of diabetic cardiomyopathy, or DbCM, a fatal fibrosis of the heart. We are also developing AT‑001 for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, or DPN, a debilitating neurodegenerative disease that significantly reduces quality of life and for which there are currently no approved treatments in the United States. We recently completed a Phase 1/2 clinical trial studying AT‑001 in approximately 120 patients with type 2 diabetes, in which no drug‑related adverse effects or tolerability issues were observed. This trial also demonstrated target engagement and proof of biological activity, as measured by reduction in sorbitol, a biomarker of AR activity and NTproBNP, a marker of cardiac stress. In September 2019, we initiated a pivotal Phase 2/3 study in DbCM patients at high risk of progression to overt heart failure. The study also includes a DPN sub‑study (in patients with both DbCM and DPN), which will inform our DPN development program.

We are also developing AT‑003, an ARI designed to cross through the back of the eye when dosed orally, and has demonstrated strong retinal penetrance, for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy, or DR. DR is an ophthalmic disease that occurs in diabetic patients and for which treatments are currently limited to high‑cost biologics requiring intravitreal administration. DR has been linked to AR activity, including elevations in sorbitol and subsequent changes in retinal blood vessels, which distorts vision and leads to permanent blindness. We are currently in late stages of preclinical development and intend to advance AT‑003 into a Phase 1 clinical trial in 2020.

Our management team and scientific advisory board are composed of accomplished scientists and clinicians with decades of experience developing drugs for a wide range of diseases. Our view is that drug development does not always need to follow the standard approach, which often requires long and costly development programs before drugs become available to patients. By taking a unique and focused approach to drug development, we believe we can significantly shorten development programs and bring lifesaving drugs to patients in urgent need. In May 2019, we completed our initial public offering (the “IPO”) whereby we sold 4,000,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $10.00 per share, resulting in aggregate net proceeds of $34.6 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. In November 2019, we completed a private placement of 1,380,344 shares of our common stock (the “Private Placement”), which resulted in net proceeds of approximately $18.4 million. In January 2020, we completed a secondary public offering of 2,471,489 shares of our common stock, including 411,223 shares sold pursuant to the underwriters’ full exercise of their option to purchase additional shares (the “Secondary Public Offering”), pursuant to which we received $134.8 million of net proceeds, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses.

 

Our Strategy

Our goal is to bring potentially transformative therapies to market across a range of fatal or debilitating diseases for which no treatments are available. The critical components of our strategy include:

In June 2019, we initiated a pivotal Phase 1/2 study for AT‑007 in healthy volunteers and adult galactosemia patients. The trial forms the basis of a future trial in pediatric patients to determine appropriate dosing in the pediatric population as well as the basis of a New Drug Application, or NDA, for treatment of galactosemia.

We intend to complete an investigational new drug application, or an IND, enabling program for AT‑003 alongside animal efficacy models in DR to support a Phase 1 clinical trial in diabetic patients.

Our Pipeline

The following table shows the status of our current ARI and PI3K inhibitor programs:

*     Subcutaneous.

**   Peripheral T‑cell lymphoma, cutaneous T‑cell lymphoma and T‑cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

We seek to protect our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates, our core technology, and other know‑how through U.S. and foreign patent protection. To the extent that our platform is not patentable, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. For more information, see the section titled “Business — Intellectual Property.”

Our Product Candidates

Our Aldose Reductase Program

AR is the first enzyme and rate‑limiting step in the polyol pathway, an alternative glucose metabolism pathway. AR is a redox‑regulated enzyme that is activated by an altered redox state within the cell, which occurs during hyperglycemia and ischemia. AR activation is associated with downstream consequences of hyperglycemia, such as diabetic complications, as well as consequences of ischemia in the heart, such as acute myocardial infarction and chronic heart failure. As shown in the figure below, AR activity produces excess sorbitol, which causes osmotic dysregulation within cells and tissues, such as nerve and retina, and is toxic to many cell types, including cardiomyocytes. Sorbitol is also further metabolized to fructose, which initiates a cascade of metabolic dysregulation and inflammatory damage to cells, such as: reactive oxygen species, or ROS, generation; advanced glycation end products, or AGE; protein kinase C, or PKC, activation; and methylglyoxal overproduction. Under non‑oxidative, or healthy patient conditions, AR remains largely inactive and less than 3% of a healthy person’s glucose is processed by the polyol pathway. However, when the oxidative environment of the cell changes due to hyperglycemia or ischemia, AR is both activated and upregulated, and greater than 30% of the patient’s glucose is then shunted through the polyol pathway, resulting in significant downstream damage to cells and tissues. The detrimental consequences of AR activation have been well established by decades of prior research. These include broad effects, such as mitochondrial dysfunction and cell death, as well as tissue‑specific changes, such as neuronal degeneration in peripheral nerves, collagen crosslinking and fibrosis in cardiac tissue, and damage to blood vessels in the lens of the eye.

AR Causes Damage to Tissues Under Conditions of Oxidative Stress

*NF‑kB is a protein complex that controls transcription of DNA, cytokine production and cell survival.

Additionally, as shown in the figure below, abnormal AR activity is associated with conversion of galactose to galactitol in patients with galactosemia. Galactitol, like sorbitol, does not cross the cell membrane and causes damage to cells across a wide range of tissues, including neurons in the brain, retinal cells in the eye and peripheral nerve tissue.

Galactitol Accumulation Results in Tissue Specific Damage

*     GALK, or galactokinase, and GALT, or galactose‑1‑phosphate uridyl transferase, are enzymes that metabolize galactose.

**   Galactose‑1‑phosphate is referred to as Gal‑1P.

During the 1980s and 1990s, AR was a significant target of drug development due to its established role in a wide range of debilitating indications. Although these programs failed to produce effective drugs with a favorable risk/benefit profile, the prior ARI clinical development programs validated the role of AR in the pathogenesis of several diabetic complications and provided useful information on optimal patient criteria and trial design.

By applying new techniques in crystallography to better understand how the enzyme works, and applying in silico design and medicinal chemistry approaches, we have developed compounds with logarithmically improved potency and increased selectivity. Our technology includes specific compounds that are in various stages of preclinical and clinical development, and is coupled with an understanding of how the enzyme works and a knowledge base of structural approaches to drug the target while controlling drug characteristics, such as PK, solubility and tissue permeability.

The following table summarizes the current status of our AR program and compound differentiation:

AT‑007 for the Treatment of Galactosemia

Overview

Our lead product candidate, AT‑007, is a novel CNS penetrant ARI for the treatment of galactosemia, a devastating rare pediatric metabolic disease that affects how the body processes a simple sugar called galactose, and for

which there is no known cure or approved treatment available. High levels of galactose circulating in the blood and tissues of galactosemia patients enable AR to convert galactose to a toxic metabolite, galactitol, which results in long‑term complications ranging from CNS dysfunction to cataracts. AT‑007 was specifically designed to be a CNS penetrant to address AR activity in the brain and potentially prevent CNS consequences of the disease. We believe galactosemia qualifies for accelerated approval under recently released draft FDA guidance for low prevalence, slowly progressing rare metabolic diseases. The guidance allows for a biomarker‑based development program if clinical efficacy and a link to a relevant biomarker can be demonstrated in an animal model of disease. We have demonstrated that treatment with AT‑007 in an animal model of galactosemia reduces toxic galactitol levels and prevents disease complications. Additionally, we believe that pediatric galactosemia may qualify for the RPD‑PRV program. In June 2019 we initiated a pivotal Phase 1/2 clinical study in healthy volunteers and adults with galactosemia examining safety, pharmacokinetics and biomarker effects of AT‑007.

 

Diagnosis and Standard of Care

Galactosemia is caused by severe deficiency in the GALK or GALT enzymes that metabolize galactose. Galactose is a sugar produced endogenously by the body, and is also a metabolite of lactose. Galactosemia is often fatal in infants within the first weeks of life if they are exposed to dietary lactose in the form of breast milk or dairy‑based formula. As such, there is mandatory newborn screening for galactosemia in the United States and many countries in Europe. While prompt identification of infants with galactosemia and immediate implementation of a lactose‑restricted diet prevents many fatalities, long‑term consequences of disease persist due to endogenous generation of galactose within the body. We are specifically developing AT‑007 for patients with severe enzyme deficiencies in GALK, which is referred to as type 2 galactosemia, and GALT, which is referred to as classic galactosemia. In these patients, despite dietary restriction, galactosemia manifests as a combination of CNS and systemic toxicities in tissues, including cognitive dysfunction and intellectual deficiencies, speech and motor pathologies, pre‑senile cataracts and tremor, as well as ovarian insufficiency in females.

Unlike severe forms of galactosemia, “clinical variant galactosemia” and “Duarte galactosemia” refer to partial reductions in various galactose metabolism enzymes; however, there does not appear to be any clinical consequence, as remaining activity is sufficient to metabolize galactose within the body. Patients with clinical variant and Duarte galactosemia do not require any intervention, in comparison to patients with severe GALK or GALT enzyme deficiencies.

There are no treatments available for galactosemia, despite movement towards enzyme replacement therapy and gene editing and delivery technologies for many other rare diseases. This is because the major tissue‑specific effects of galactosemia are seen in neurons in the brain, and delivery of recombinant enzymes, as well as gene delivery and editing, are difficult to accomplish across the blood‑brain barrier and into neuronal cells, and current technologies have not yet been able to achieve therapeutic CNS delivery. Due to endogenous production of galactose within the body, infants with galactosemia develop significant complications even with immediate implementation of, and strict adherence to, a dairy‑free diet. CNS complications include cognitive impairment, low IQ, speech and motor deficiencies, and infant or pediatric seizures. In addition, nearly all females develop ovarian insufficiency. Further to the damage that

occurs in childhood, many adults also develop persistent cataracts, tremor and seizures, due to ongoing tissue deposition of galactitol in the eyes and peripheral nerves.

AR Activity Causes Toxic Accumulation of Galactitol in Galactosemia

As shown in the figure below, we believe that blocking AR activity shifts galactose metabolism to an alternative enzyme called galactose dehydrogenase, which allows galactose to be metabolized to galactonate, a benign substance that is removed in the urine.

Market Opportunity

The global incidence of galactosemia is estimated to be 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 90,000, depending on ethnicity. However, we believe that the U.S. galactosemia population is approximately 2,800 patients, based on newborn screening data identifying 2,500 infants through 2014, and the estimated birth rate of 80 patients per year. Prior studies estimated that the U.S. galactosemia population was higher based on the incidence rates, because they did not take into account that, prior to newborn screening, most infants with galactosemia died within a few weeks of birth. As a result, the disease prevalence is significantly lower, and the live population with galactosemia is largely age 40 and younger.

Preclinical Studies

A rat model of classic galactosemia, or GALT null, was recently developed at Emory University, and was shown to display similar levels of galactose and metabolites in blood and tissues to that of galactosemia patients. These rats develop many of the long‑term complications associated with galactosemia in humans, including bilateral cataracts, as well as CNS deficiencies in motor coordination, cognition and learning, as quantified by rotarod and water maze

testing. Characteristics of this model, including cataracts and high levels of galactose, galactitol and Gal‑1P in blood and tissues such as liver and brain, are shown in the figure below.

Animal Model of GALT Deficiency

As shown in the figures below, treatment with AT‑007 in neonatal GALT null rats from day 1 to day 10 significantly reduced galactitol levels in target tissues, including blood, brain and liver, without increasing galactose or Gal‑1P levels, and prevented complications associated with galactitol accumulation in tissues, including cataract formation and CNS dysfunction. The effects of AT‑007 were dose dependent and corresponded with galactitol reduction.

Rats treated with AT‑007 also displayed reduced galactonate levels, supporting our hypothesis that ARIs increase metabolism of galactose by galactonate dehydrogenase.

AT‑007 Treatment Significantly Reduced Galactitol Levels in Liver, Brain and Plasma

Similar reductions in galactitol were observed at day 22 and at five months. Additionally, AT‑007 prevented cataract formation in newborn rats at day 10, day 22 (as shown in the figure below) and at five months.

AT‑007 Treatment Prevented Cataract Formation in Newborn Rats

As shown in the figures below, greater doses of AT‑007 reduced galactitol levels and the severity of cataracts.

AT‑007 Cataract Dose Response

AT‑007 Galactitol Reduction Dose Response

As shown in the figure below, AT‑007 reduced galactonate levels, which we believe supports our hypothesis that AR inhibition activates galactonate dehydrogenase.

AT‑007 Reduced Galactonate Levels at Day 22

WT and GALT null rats were treated daily with AT‑007 for five months, beginning on the day after birth, and were tested for cognitive outcomes via rotarod and water maze testing. Generally, rotarod tests both learning and motor coordination, while water maze tests intelligence and cognitive ability.

As shown in the figure below, while galactosemic rats show deficits in learning and motor coordination versus WT rats, treatment with AT‑007 was able to prevent these deficiencies and normalize cognitive and motor function as measured by both rotarod and water maze testing.

AT‑007 Treatment Prevented CNS Deficits in GALT Null Rats (Rotarod Test)

Clinical Development Plan

We have evaluated AT‑007 in a pivotal Phase 1/2 clinical trial in healthy volunteers and adults with galactosemia. Although much of the CNS damage seen in adults is permanent and irreversible, prevention of further damage to tissues that occurs throughout adult life, such as cataract formation, seizures and tremor, may provide significant quality of life benefits to galactosemic adults. In pediatric studies we will seek to prevent any tissue damage from occurring, including neuronal damage in the brain that results in cognitive, intellectual, speech and motor deficits in infants and children.

The Phase 1 clinical trial was split into two parts — Phase 1 in healthy volunteers and Phase 2 in adults with galactosemia. The Phase 1 portion in healthy volunteers is designed as a SAD and MAD clinical trial in 24 to 32 healthy volunteers, six to eight patients per cohort, with two patients receiving placebo. The Phase 1 evaluated safety, tolerability and PK of AT‑007 at doses of 5mg/kg to 20mg/kg per day via once daily dosing. The MAD portion of the trial studied seven days of consecutive treatment at 5‑20mg/kg per day. The Phase 2 portion in adults with galactosemia was designed as an adaptive trial in 12 to 18 patients, with up to six patients per cohort. The Phase 2 portion evaluated safety, tolerability and PK in adult patients with galactosemia. Patients received either AT‑007 5mg/kg, AT‑007 20mg/kg or placebo, receiving a single dose four days prior to receiving 27 days of consecutive dosing. Biomarker levels of galactose and galactose metabolites, including galactitol, were also measured in these patients to determine target engagement and proof of biological activity.

On January 8, 2020, we announced positive topline results from the pivotal Phase 2 portion of the ACTION‑Galactosemia study of AT‑007, a CNS penetrant AR inhibitor, in adult galactosemia patients. ACTION‑Galactosemia is a double‑blind placebo‑controlled trial evaluating safety and pharmacokinetics of AT‑007 in healthy volunteers, as well as safety, pharmacokinetics and biomarker effects in adult galactosemia patients over 28 days of once daily oral dosing. The key biomarker outcome of the study was reduction in galactitol, an aberrant toxic metabolite of galactose, formed by AR in galactosemia patients.

AT‑007 treatment resulted in a statistically significant and robust reduction in plasma galactitol versus placebo in adult galactosemia patients. Reductions in galactitol were dose dependent, with higher concentrations of AT‑007

resulting in a greater magnitude of reduction in galactitol. At the highest dose tested (20mg/kg), AT‑007 significantly reduced plasma galactitol 45‑54% from baseline versus placebo (with a p value of less than 0.01). Galactitol reduction was rapid and sustained over time. No substantial change from baseline was observed in placebo treated patients. AT‑007 was well tolerated, with no drug‑related adverse events noted to date in galactosemia patients or in the 72 healthy volunteers treated in Part 1 of the trial.

 

We plan to utilize recent FDA guidance permitting biomarker‑based development in low prevalence, slowly progressing rare metabolic diseases, such as galactosemia, and expects to file for regulatory approval in the second half of 2020.

Due to the early role of endogenous galactose production and resulting galactitol levels on neuronal damage, there is an urgency to treat prior to damage occurring. We plan to move as quickly as possible in clinical development from adults to children. We believe that a pediatric indication in galactosemia may qualify for the RPD‑PRV program.

AT‑001 for the Treatment of Diabetic Cardiomyopathy

Overview

We are developing AT‑001, a novel ARI with broad systemic exposure and peripheral nerve permeability being developed for the treatment of DbCM, a fatal fibrosis of the heart, for which no treatments are available. We recently completed a Phase 1/2 clinical trial evaluating AT‑001 in approximately 120 patients with type 2 diabetes, in which no drug‑related adverse effects or tolerability issues were observed. This trial also demonstrated target engagement and proof of biological activity, as measured by reduction in sorbitol, a biomarker of AR activity and NTproBNP. In September 2019, we initiated a pivotal Phase 2/3 study in DbCM patients at high risk of progression to overt heart failure.

Diagnosis and Standard of Care

DbCM is a fatal fibrosis of the heart that occurs in both type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients, which leads to decreased contractility and decreased heart function, eventually resulting in fulminant heart failure. DbCM is caused by metabolic derangements in cardiomyocytes that result in cell death and fibrosis. AR activity has been shown to be a large contributor to these metabolic derangements, and the downstream effect of AR activation is responsible for the cardiomyocyte cell death and fibrosis. DbCM is diagnosed by increased weight of the heart and decreased contractility, which are identified by echocardiographic screening, as well as by exclusion of other forms of heart disease. Epidemiological studies have shown that approximately 17% to 24% of diabetic patients display DbCM in the absence of any other forms of heart disease. These patients do not have hypertension, atherosclerosis, valvular heart disease or ischemia, and the only cause of the cardiomyopathy is the underlying diabetes. Stages of DbCM range from asymptomatic, or stage 1, to acute heart failure, or stage 4. Most patients are not diagnosed until stage 2, where heart function approaches 50% of normal and symptoms manifest as extreme shortness of breath during exercise, referred to as decreased exercise tolerance. Exercise tolerance in these patients (as measured by maximum amount of oxygen a person can utilize during intense exercise known as peak VO2) is approximately 25% lower than diabetic patients without DbCM, and decreases by an additional 30% as the patients progress to overt heart failure in later stages of diseases. Patients quickly progress at a steady state of decline to stage 3, which includes marked cavity dilation and severe limitations in daily activities. The final stage of DbCM, stage 4, is represented by acute heart failure resulting in death. The current standard of care is to target glucose control in these patients, as well as hemodynamic modulation of blood flow, through use of beta blockers and diuretics. Both approaches are largely ineffective, and DbCM often results in death within five to ten years of diagnosis. Approximately 24% of DbCM patients progress to overt heart failure or death within 1.5 years of diagnosis, and 37% within five years of diagnosis.

Market Opportunity

According to a retrospective epidemiological study, approximately 17% of patients suffering from diabetes develop DbCM. A more recent study completed in France that utilized echocardiographic screening estimates the proportion of diabetic patients to develop DbCM at approximately 24%. The International Diabetes Foundation estimated that there were approximately 451 million patients globally with diabetes in 2017, which is expected to

increase to 693 million by 2045. This includes 58.0 million diabetes patients in Europe in 2017, which is expected to increase to 67.0 million in 2045, and 46.0 million in North America, which is expected to increase to 62.0 million in 2045. Based on an estimated prevalence of 17% of diabetic patients who develop DbCM, we estimate that currently there are approximately 77.0 million patients with DbCM globally, with approximately 8.0 million in North America and 10.0 million in Europe. Initially, our development program will target stage 2 and 3 patients, which we estimate constitute approximately 50% of all DbCM patients. We believe these patients represent a symptomatic population that is more likely to be responsive to treatment. Stage 1 and 4 patients represent an additional market opportunity, which we plan to explore in a post‑approval setting.

Prior AR‑Based Approaches to Treat DbCM

AR activity has been implicated as a strong contributing factor to pathogenesis in DbCM. Pfizer Inc. was developing an ARI, Alond (zopolrestat), for the treatment of DPN and DbCM in a Phase 2 clinical trial that demonstrated favorable outcomes on heart function in DbCM patients, but the clinical trial was discontinued due to an unfavorable risk/benefit profile, with several patients experiencing liver toxicity and significant elevations in both aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, which are enzymes central to identification of liver toxicity and damage. In this trial, patients with early‑stage DbCM were identified by echocardiographic screening and were randomized to three treatment groups, which consisted of placebo, 500 mg zopolrestat per day or 1,000 mg zopolrestat per day dosed for one year. Due to liver toxicity seen in another trial with zopolrestat, the 1,000 mg treatment arm was reduced to 500 mg, and the two doses were collapsed into one treatment arm. While patients on placebo displayed decreased heart function over the year of the trial as their disease progressed, patients on zopolrestat displayed a stabilization of heart function and even improvement in heart function in some patients based on hemodynamic endpoints. As shown in the figure below, after one year of ARI treatment, there were statistically significant increases in resting left ventricular ejection fraction, or LVEF (p<0.02), cardiac output (p<0.03), left ventricular, or LV, stroke volume (p<0.004), and exercise LVEF (p<0.001). In placebo‑treated subjects, there were statistically significant decreases in exercise LVEF, cardiac output and stroke volume. Exercise LVEF increased with ARI treatment independent of blood pressure, insulin use or the presence of baseline abnormal heart rate variability. There was no change in resting diastolic filling rates in either group. This trial demonstrated that abnormalities in systolic function in patients with DbCM can be stabilized and partially reversed by ARI treatment. We believe this data validates the

approach of using an ARI to improve outcomes for patients with DbCM and using our compounds, which demonstrate improved potency and have been well tolerated, may lead to greater clinical utility.

Cardiac Function at 12 Months on Maximal Exercise

*Data are mean +/− standard deviation.

As shown in the figure below, when compared to zopolrestat, AT‑001 has significantly higher in vitro enzymatic inhibitory activity. IC50 and IC90, or the amount of a compound required to inhibit 90% enzyme activity, are typically calculated by determining the level of enzymatic inhibition at ten‑fold dilutions, moving to smaller concentrations of the inhibitory compound. At lower concentrations of compound, AT‑001 demonstrated logarithmically greater enzymatic inhibition versus zopolrestat. Similarly, the IC50 of AT‑001 was determined to be 30pM, nearly 1,000 fold lower than that of zopolrestat, which is 10nM. Zopolrestat demonstrated liver toxicity as a side effect in several clinical studies, which was believed to be due not to AR inhibition, but due to off‑target inhibition of a structurally related enzyme, Aldehyde Reductase, which is required for normal liver function. AT‑001 demonstrates increased selectivity for AR, and does not inhibit Aldehyde Reductase at any concentration tested. This increased selectivity led to lack of toxicity in cultured hepatocytes, or liver cells, whereas zopolrestat demonstrated significant toxicity in hepatocytes as shown in the figures below. Thus, we believe that not only is AT‑001 a more potent AR inhibitor than prior drugs, but that we have overcome the safety and toxicity limitations from prior compounds, which were due to lack of selectivity and off‑target inhibition of Aldehyde Reductase. 

In vitro Aldose Reductase Activity AT‑001 versus Zopolrestat

In Vitro Aldehyde Reductase Activity AT‑001 vs. Zopolrestat

Aldehyde Reductase Activity

Hepatotoxicity in Cultured Liver Cells AT‑001 vs. Zopolrestat

 

 

 

Recently Completed and Ongoing Clinical Trials

We have recently evaluated AT‑001 in a placebo‑controlled Phase 1/2 single ascending dose, or SAD, and multiple ascending dose, or MAD, clinical trial in approximately 120 type 2 diabetes patients. The primary objectives of this trial were to explore the safety, tolerability and PK profile of AT‑001. Because AR converts glucose to sorbitol, and AR activity is elevated in diabetic patients, sorbitol normalization was also examined as a pharmacodynamic, or PD, biomarker of target engagement, which provided proof of biological activity in patients.

The Phase 1/2 clinical trial allowed use of concomitant treatments for glucose control, as well as other standard of care treatments for diabetes, such as statins and ACE inhibitors. The FDA permitted us to directly evaluate diabetic patients due to positive data from the preclinical studies, as well as the urgency to develop drugs quickly due to high unmet need. AT‑001 was dosed as an active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, powder in a rapid release capsule and the trial examined both once‑daily and twice‑daily, or BID, dosing regimens. We have completed the initial safety, pharmacology and biomarker studies up to seven consecutive days of treatment. No drug‑related adverse effects or tolerability issues were observed at any single or multiple doses of AT‑001. Treatment with AT‑001 did not cause any abnormalities in vital signs or electrocardiogram, and did not cause an increase in glucose levels. Additionally, there were no observed adverse interactions with any concomitant diabetes medications used by patients during the trial.

SAD Portion of the Trial

Our SAD trial was conducted on 40 type 2 diabetes patients, ten patients per cohort, with eight patients receiving AT‑001 and two patients receiving placebo. The patients were dosed under fasted conditions and received breakfast two hours post dose. Hourly blood samples were taken for PK and sorbitol measurements over a 12‑hour period and again at 24 hours. Our initial dose of 5 mg/kg dosed orally was observed to have an effect on sorbitol levels in patients. Although we observed an effect on AR activity at the lowest dose of 5 mg/kg, we continued to dose escalate up to 40 mg/kg. Unlike prior compounds that were often limited by tolerability and safety issues, our compound did not demonstrate safety or tolerability limitations up to the maximum tested dose of 40 mg/kg. As shown in the figure below,

dose‑response impact from 5 mg/kg to 40 mg/kg was observed on PK endpoints, providing adequate information for future dose selection.

PK Timeframe for AT‑001 Phase 1/2 SAD Cohorts

(each curve represents the mean of eight patients)

As shown in the figures below, AT‑001 demonstrated a linear PK profile, which we believe evidences a predictable dose response.

Because AR converts glucose to sorbitol, and AR activity is elevated in diabetic patients, sorbitol normalization to healthy subject levels can be used as a PD biomarker of target engagement and proof of biological activity. As shown in the figures below, which is representative of the AT‑001‑treated patients in the trial, as levels of AT‑001 increase in the patients’ blood, sorbitol levels are significantly reduced.

Representative PK Curves of AT‑001 and Whole Blood Sorbitol Levels in Patients Treated with AT‑001

As shown in the figure below, which is representative of the placebo‑treated patients in the trial, this effect was not observed in placebo patients, who demonstrated sorbitol increases over the timeframe of drug‑related sorbitol reduction, due to food effects on sorbitol. These patients were given breakfast two hours post dose.

Representative Curve of Whole Blood Sorbitol Levels in Placebo‑Treated Patients

As shown in the figure below, a dose response was observed when percent reduction in sorbitol levels was calculated at the C_max of the drug, which is approximately two hours, demonstrating higher reductions in sorbitol at

higher doses of AT‑001. Average sorbitol levels of healthy volunteers were observed to be approximately 470 ng/ml and approximately 750 ng/ml for diabetic patients. The average net difference in sorbitol levels between diabetic patients and healthy volunteers represents the approximate amount of sorbitol generated by abnormal AR activity, which is approximately 50% reduction on average. Baseline sorbitol levels seen in healthy volunteers are believed to be primarily due to dietary intake of sorbitol, as well as baseline AR activity, which is approximately 3% glucose metabolism through AR in healthy volunteers.

AT‑001 Percent Reduction in Sorbitol, SAD Cohorts A1‑A4

The figure below depicts the average reduction in sorbitol from baseline to Cmax of two hours from each dose cohort, as captured by the figure above. Based on our trials, we believe the complete inhibition of aberrant AR activity seen in diabetic patients corresponds to an approximately 50% reduction in elevated sorbitol levels to the healthy

volunteer average of 470 ng/ml. This was achieved in 25% of patients dosed at 10 mg/kg, 50% of patients dosed at 20 mg/kg and 75% of patients dosed at 40 mg/kg.

AT‑001 Mean Reduction in Sorbitol by Dose, SAD Cohorts A1‑A4

MAD Portion of the Trial

Our MAD trial was conducted on 40 type 2 diabetes patients, ten patients per cohort, with eight patients receiving AT‑001 and two patients receiving placebo. The patients were dosed for seven consecutive days with 5 mg/kg, 20 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg once daily, or 20 mg/kg twice daily. Hourly blood samples were taken for PK and sorbitol measurements over a 12‑hour period and again at 24 hours on days one and seven.

As shown in the figure below, PK profile of AT‑001 was similar on days one and seven, suggesting there was no first pass clearance or other PK effects due to repeat dosing over this time period.

AT‑001 Multiple Dose PK Profile—No First Pass Clearance or Drug Accumulation at 5 mg/kg

As shown in the figure below, effects on sorbitol from baseline to Cmax of two hours from each dose cohort were similar at day one and day seven, indicating that there is no correction for AT‑001 effects in diabetic patients over this time period.

Comparison of % Reduction in Sorbitol from Baseline to C_max at Day 1 and Day 7 of Dosing

The figure below shows the effect on sorbitol levels over a 12‑hour period in patients treated with 5 mg/kg, 20 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg doses versus placebo. Treatment with AT‑001 resulted in dose‑dependent AR inhibition as measured by sorbitol reduction over a 10‑ to 12‑hour period.

Effect of AT‑001 on Sorbitol Levels Over 12 Hours

Protection from Post‑Prandial AR Activation in Diabetic Patients

The diabetic patients enrolled in this trial had well‑controlled blood glucose levels. However, these patients still experienced periods of transient worsening of hyperglycemia, specifically following meals when there is excess glucose available. This transient post‑prandial response leads to further activation of AR and is seen as an increase in blood sorbitol levels following meals in placebo treated patients, as shown in the figure above and in prior figures. Patients receiving AT‑001 not only demonstrated reduced sorbitol levels, but were also protected from post‑prandial AR activation.

Phase 2a in DbCM Patients

We have completed an extension to our Phase 1/2 clinical trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability and PK of AT‑001 over a 28‑day treatment period in approximately 30 type 2 diabetes patients with early‑stage DbCM. The primary objectives were to explore the safety and tolerability of AT‑001 over 28 days in patients with early‑stage DbCM, and to examine the PK profiles of a flat dose of 3,000 mg per patient administered via three different dosing formulations and posologies: (1) a once‑daily extended release, or ER, formulation in the form of four 750 mg tablets, (2) 1,500 mg BID rapid release capsule 12 hours apart and (3) 1,000 mg three times daily, or TID, eight hours apart. Additionally, many DbCM patients displayed elevated levels of a cardiac biomarker, NTproBNP, which can be

examined alongside sorbitol normalization as a biomarker of AT‑001 biological activity. There were approximately ten patients per cohort, with eight patients receiving AT‑001 and two patients receiving placebo.

Pharmacokinetic Results

Even though the ER tablet did not release AT‑001 from the polymer binding as expected, which resulted in low levels of exposure over a six‑hour period, it aided in determining the lowest efficacious dose, as this cohort did not demonstrate a significant clinical response on the cardiac biomarker endpoints. The 1,500 mg BID and 1,000 mg TID capsule dosing regimens provided sustained levels of AT‑001 in the bloodstream throughout the 24‑hour period, but with different PK signatures. The figure below shows the PK profile of AT‑001 in 1,500 mg BID and 1,000 mg TID rapid release capsule and the once daily ER tablet.

PK Profile of AT‑001 over 24 Hours

Additionally, as shown in the figures below, BID dosing regimen provided a slightly higher Cmax at first dose administration, with levels dropping low, but still above zero, at 12 hours post‑dose. The TID dosing regimen provided a lower Cmax at the first dose, but displayed an additive effect after second dose administration to achieve a Cmax at the

second dose similar to that seen with the BID dosing regimen. Significant levels of AT‑001 were sustained at all time‑points with the TID dosing regimen.

 

Sorbitol Reduction

As expected, due to the low exposure achieved with the ER tablet, only moderate sorbitol reduction was seen with the ER tablet as compared to the 1,500 mg BID and 1,000 mg TID rapid release capsule dosing regimens. However, both BID and TID capsule dosing regimens achieved the target range of sorbitol inhibition, normalizing sorbitol to that of healthy volunteers in many patients, and demonstrating statistically significant results versus placebo‑treated patients at both two hours post‑dose (Cmax) and when AUC was evaluated over 12 hours as shown in the figures below.

 

NTproBNP Biomarker

NTproBNP is a prohormone released by the heart in response to the stretching of the LV or changes in LV pressure. NTproBNP is well accepted as a blood‑based biomarker of cardiac stress and function, and is used in the clinical setting to diagnose overt heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. Patients with early stage DbCM typically display lower levels of NTproBNP than patients with overt heart failure, but higher levels than non‑DbCM diabetic patients or healthy volunteers. In diabetic patients, the level of NTproBNP prior to overt heart failure has been correlated with worsening cardiac outcomes over time. We hypothesized that by lowering the metabolic stress and damage to the heart caused by AR, AT‑001 may affect NTproBNP levels in early stage DbCM patients. We demonstrated that treatment with AT‑001 at 1,500 mg BID or 1,000 mg TID lowered mean NTproBNP levels across the cohort of treated patients over the 28‑day treatment period versus placebo or the ER tablet. As shown in the figure below, both BID and TID treatment regimens displayed similar effects on NTproBNP, suggesting that the two different treatment regimens are similar in their effectiveness.

Change in NTproBNP 0‑28 Days

Additionally, when NTproBNP levels were examined on an individual patient basis to assess the percent of patients that demonstrated a clinically meaningful reduction in NTproBNP, defined as a reduction of >25 pg/mL, the

BID and TID dose cohorts produced a greater percent of clinical responders versus placebo or ER tablet patients, as shown in the figure below.

Safety

AT‑001 was well tolerated over 28 days at all doses and regimens tested. No serious adverse events or drug‑related adverse events were reported over the 28‑day treatment period, and no clinically significant abnormal lab values were noted.

Preclinical Studies

In preclinical toxicology studies in dogs and rats, AT‑001 was observed to be well tolerated up to 2,000 mg/kg per day, the maximum dose tested. No dose‑limiting adverse effects or tolerability issues were observed. Additionally, no drug‑related adverse effects were observed in hERG studies, micronucleus assays, Ames testing or any other preclinical safety and toxicology studies required for IND approval. Additionally, in vitro metabolism studies suggested that AT‑001 is not significantly metabolized in hepatocytes and it does not inhibit cytochromes.

In preclinical efficacy studies in diabetic and non‑diabetic rats and mice, AT‑001 was cardioprotective, preventing damage caused by ischemia in the left anterior descending ligation model of cardiac damage. As shown in the

figures below, AT‑001 in both pre‑treatment and post‑ischemia dosing models prevented cardiac damage, as measured by ischemic area, hemodynamic endpoints and biomarkers of heart damage.

AT‑001 is Cardioprotective in Diabetic Models

Clinical Development Plan

Until recently, development in cardiovascular disease indications often required large outcome‑based trials that examined survival and re‑hospitalization as primary endpoints. These trials were extremely large, expensive and time‑consuming, and were often confounded by comorbidities in the patient population. As a result, very few cardiovascular programs resulted in approved drugs. There has been a recent effort from the Division of Cardiovascular and Renal Products at the FDA, as well as at the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, to streamline drug development for cardiovascular disease to increase the probability of demonstrating a meaningful clinical effect in patients. Specifically in cardiomyopathies, where there is a direct functional link between hemodynamic endpoints, heart contractility and quality of life, there is a unique opportunity to demonstrate benefit of therapy in a smaller number of patients and shorter treatment period than was previously required. Recent clinical development programs in hereditary cardiomyopathies have pioneered smaller trials examining exercise tolerance and/or heart functional class as a primary endpoint. Based on this precedent, we plan to take a similar approach to development of AT‑001 for the treatment of DbCM.

Consistent with these developments, at our pre‑IND meeting, the FDA indicated that we would not be required to examine survival and re‑hospitalization endpoints, and confirmed that exercise tolerance would qualify as an appropriate primary endpoint in our DbCM trial. This was also recently publicly confirmed by the FDA in a whitepaper entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry: Treatment for Heart Failure: Endpoints for Drug Development.” Accordingly, we designed our pivotal Phase 2/3 clinical trial to target functional capacity, or exercise tolerance, as measured by Peak VO2 on Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing (CPET) in DbCM patients at high risk of progression to overt heart failure. The primary endpoint in the trial will be stabilization or decrease in slope of decline on functional capacity, as measured by peak VO2, the rate of oxygen consumption measured during exercise. We are also evaluating heart function by echocardiogram‑based hemodynamic endpoints, progression to overt heart failure, and quality of life, as well as biomarkers of heart inflammation and damage. This trial will consist of 675 patients in three cohorts of approximately 225 patients each, including a placebo group, a low dose AT‑001 group (1,000mg twice daily) and a high dose AT‑001 group (1,500mg twice daily). The trial treatment period for evaluation of the primary endpoint will be 15 months, with additional endpoints evaluated at 27 months. In September 2019, we announced the initiation of a Phase 3 registrational trial for AT‑001 in DbCM called ARISE‑HF.

AT‑001 for the Treatment of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

Overview

We also intend to develop AT‑001 for DPN, a debilitating neurodegenerative disease that significantly reduces patients’ quality of life, and for which there are currently no FDA‑approved treatments. We expect this indication will require a standard clinical development path, and as such we plan to pursue a strategic partnership in order to expand into this indication. Since many patients with DbCM also have DPN, we plan to collect proof‑of‑concept data through our DbCM program to support our efforts in our DPN program. We have included a DPN sub‑study in our pivotal DbCM study.

Diagnosis and Current Standard of Care

DPN is diagnosed by a simple neurological assessment, usually the Toronto Neuropathy Scoring System, which is administered in the physician’s office and examines a patient’s ability to feel various types of neurological stimuli on the hands and feet. AR activity has been shown to cause DPN. Epalrestat, an ARI, is approved in Japan, China and India to prevent further neuronal degeneration in DPN patients. However, there are no disease modifying therapies approved in the United States and Europe, and only symptomatic medications, such as Lyrica, are approved for pain associated with DPN. Although epalrestat was approved in Japan in 1992 based on very limited clinical data that would not have been sufficient for other markets, more recent academic studies have demonstrated an effect on MNCV and symptomatic pain endpoints in a wide range of diabetic patients. For example, a multicenter, three‑year Phase 3 clinical trial conducted in Japan on epalrestat 150 mg versus placebo demonstrated that epalrestat prevented progression of DPN in diabetic patients versus placebo. Epalrestat prevented degeneration of nerve function, as measured by MNCV, and prevented worsening of symptomatic pain. A statistically significant effect was demonstrated in all patients regardless of low or high levels of glucose attached to their hemoglobin, as tested by a hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) test.

Epalrestat, which is now generic in Japan, reached peak sales of approximately $226 million in 2001. This is indicative of its widespread use in the Japanese diabetic population, which was approximately five million patients at the time of launch despite significant tolerability issues associated with use and five times daily dosing due to a very short half‑life. We do not believe, however, that it is likely to be a candidate for further commercialization. Nevertheless, prior research on epalrestat evinces the role of AR in DPN and provides a clinical trial design to demonstrate efficacy in this indication.

Market Opportunity

Approximately 50% of the global diabetic population, or 226 million diabetic patients, suffer from DPN, with 23.0 million patients in North America and 29.0 million patients in Europe. Due to availability of generic epalrestat in China and India, we view the opportunity in these two markets to be limited as a result of pricing pressures and differentiation requirements with regard to epalrestat. However, we believe a significant market opportunity for a more effective ARI with a favorable dosing regimen still exists in Japan, a less price sensitive market where there is familiarity with the mechanism of action in the disease and use of epalrestat is high. As such, although we are currently focused on the U.S. market, we may expand our efforts into Japan opportunistically.

Preclinical Studies

In preclinical studies, AT‑001 demonstrated improvements in neuronal degeneration in animal models of DPN and provided good exposure to peripheral nerve tissue, as measured by MNCV in sciatic and tail nerves of diabetic rats. As shown in the figures below, in a type 1 diabetic rat model of peripheral neuropathy, AT‑001 treatment prevented peripheral neuronal damage, as measured by MNCV after six weeks of treatment with zopolrestat 30 mg/kg, epalrestat 15 mg/kg, AT‑001 0.3 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg, or placebo. The diabetic rats treated with placebo demonstrated a reduction in nerve function as measured by MNCV versus non‑diabetic wild‑type, or WT, rats, confirming that the six weeks of diabetes duration caused neuronal dysfunction. A dose‑dependent reduction in neuronal dysfunction was observed in rats treated with AT‑001, and treatment at 30 mg/kg of AT‑001 completely prevented neuronal

degeneration, with no statistical difference from non‑diabetic WT rats. Effects of treatment with AT‑001 demonstrated a similar effect versus zopolrestat or epalrestat at lower doses, and an increased effect at higher doses.

Induced Diabetic Rat Models (Six‑Week Treatment)

In a type 2 diabetic rat model, AT‑001 demonstrated improvements in neuronal degeneration versus epalrestat. Zucker diabetic fatty, or ZDF, rats were treated with epalrestat 30 mg/kg, AT‑001 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, or placebo for 12 weeks, and effects on neurons were measured by MNCV. The diabetic rats treated with placebo demonstrated a reduction in nerve function as measured by MNCV versus non‑diabetic WT rats, confirming that the 12 weeks of diabetes duration caused neuronal dysfunction. Treatment with AT‑001 showed a dose‑dependent reduction in neuronal dysfunction, and treatment at 10 mg/kg completely prevented neuronal degeneration, with no statistical difference from non‑diabetic WT rats. Effects of treatment with AT‑001 demonstrated a similar effect versus epalrestat at a varying dose of 30 mg/kg of epalrestat versus 3 mg/kg of AT‑001, and an increased effect at 1/3 the dose of 30 mg/kg of epalrestat versus 10 mg/kg of AT‑001.

Clinical Development Plan

Since many DbCM patients often also suffer from DPN, we have incorporated DPN endpoints, such as MNCV, as a sub‑study into our DbCM pivotal program to provide additional proof‑of‑concept for AT‑001 in DPN. We plan to seek a strategic partnership to develop AT‑001 for treatment of DPN and advance the program into Phase 3 clinical trial for this indication.

AT‑003 for the Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy

Overview

We are developing AT‑003, an ARI designed to cross through the back of the eye when dosed orally, which has demonstrated strong retinal penetrance, for the treatment of DR. DR is an ophthalmic disease that occurs in diabetic patients, and for which treatments are currently limited to intravitreal administration. DR has been linked to AR activity, including elevations in sorbitol and subsequent changes in retinal blood vessels, which distorts vision and leads to permanent blindness. We are currently in late stages of preclinical development and intend to advance AT‑003 into a Phase 1 clinical trial for the treatment of DR in 2020.

Diagnosis and Current Standard of Care

DR is diagnosed by routine dilated eye exam by an ophthalmologist. Annual or biennial ophthalmic exams to screen for DR are a recommended standard of care for diabetic patients under current treatment guidelines. Vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF, inhibitors, Lucentis (ranibizumab) and Eylea (aflibercept), are approved to treat severe or late‑stage DR, but are limited by high cost, the need for intravitreal injection into the eye and the lack of therapeutic benefit in many patients. A need exists for safe, effective and tolerable treatments for DR early in the disease process that provide a benefit to a wide range of patients. AR is an attractive target for DR drug development since AR activity is upstream of VEGF activity in DR pathogenesis. AR has been shown to cause DR by inducing hyperosmolarity

in retinal cells due to elevated sorbitol, as well as through fructose‑mediated detrimental downstream effects, such as AGE generation and PKC activation. AR knock‑out rats are protected from DR development, and several prior ARIs demonstrated efficacy on DR endpoints in clinical trials, but were not approved due to dose‑limiting safety concerns.

Market Opportunity

A recent retrospective epidemiological analysis of diabetic patients globally confirmed that DR affects approximately 35% of diabetics, and is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Based on the 2017 diabetes numbers, the global market for DR is approximately 158 million patients, with anticipated increase to 243 million by 2045. The current market is approximately 16.0 million in North America and 20.0 million in Europe.

Preclinical Studies

AT‑003 displayed significant retinal penetration when dosed orally in diabetic rats. AT‑003 was observed to be well tolerated over a seven‑day dosing period in all doses tested, up to 1,000 mg/kg daily, with no adverse effects observed. Efficacy of AT‑003 is currently being explored in two animal models of DR — an ischemic injury model (acute damage) and chronic diabetic treatment model.

Clinical Development Plan

Similar to AT‑001, we plan to explore the safety, tolerability, PK profile and biomarker effects of AT‑003 in a Phase 1a/1b clinical trial in diabetic patients. Assuming positive data in this trial, we plan to initiate a pivotal Phase 2/₃ clinical trial of AT‑003 in patients with DR to prevent disease progression versus placebo, as measured by subjective metrics, including fluoroscein angiography and optical coherence tomography, which are scans used in the examination and management of retinal diseases.

Our Early‑Stage PI3K Program

PI3 kinkases, or PI3K, are a family of membrane‑based enzymes containing a catalytic subunit that exists in four different isoforms: alpha, beta, delta and gamma. PI3K triggers a signaling cascade that regulates cell proliferation and survival, and is constitutively activated in many tumor cell lines. Prior PI3K inhibitors were nonselective for subunit inhibition, and were plagued by tolerability and safety issues, such as hepatic toxicity, severe diarrhea and colitis, hyperglycemia and hypertension, which are believed to be due to inhibition of the alpha and beta subunits. Selective inhibition of certain PI3K subunits may be advantageous in targeting tumor cells and maximizing response, while avoiding dose‑limiting side effects and tolerability issues. Using similar strategies to our ARI program, we have developed highly selective PI3K inhibitors that target the delta subunit, as well as dual delta/gamma selectivity.

AT‑104 for the Treatment of Orphan Hematological Oncology

We expect to initially target orphan hematological oncology indications, including peripheral T‑cell lymphoma, cutaneous T‑cell lymphoma and T‑cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. We plan to initiate our clinical program in these indications in 2021. We are additionally developing selective alpha/gamma inhibitors to target solid tumors that constitutively express PI3K alpha.

Exclusive License Agreement with Columbia University

On October 26, 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Columbia University (the “2016 Columbia Agreement”). Pursuant to the 2016 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University granted us a royalty‑bearing, sublicensable license that is exclusive with respect to certain patents, and non‑exclusive with respect to certain know‑how, in each case to develop, manufacture, and commercialize ARI products, including AT‑001, AT‑003 and AT‑007. The license grant is worldwide with the exception of a single patent family covering AT‑001 and AT‑003 for which the license grant excludes China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao. Under the 2016 Columbia Agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, discover, develop and market licensed products for commercial sale in the licensed territory, and to comply with certain obligations to meet specified development and

funding milestones within defined time periods. Columbia University retains the right to conduct, and grant third parties the right to conduct, non‑clinical academic research using the licensed technology; provided that such research is not funded by a commercial entity or for‑profit entity or results in rights granted to a commercial or for‑profit entity. As the technology licensed to us under the 2016 Columbia Agreement was developed as a result of a U.S. government grant, the licenses granted to us under the agreement are subject to the terms of such grant, and to standard rights of the U.S. government under the Bayh‑Dole Act, including the grant to the government of a non‑exclusive, worldwide, freedom to operate license under any patents, and the requirement, absent a waiver, to manufacture products substantially in the United States.

As consideration for entering into the 2016 Columbia Agreement, we made a nominal upfront payment to Columbia University and, following the occurrence of certain trigger events, issued to Columbia University shares equal to 5% of our outstanding common stock on a fully diluted basis at the time of issuance. We will be required to make further payments to Columbia University of up to an aggregate of $1.3 million for the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, and up to an aggregate of $1.0 million for the achievement of a specified level of aggregate annual net sales, in each case in connection with products covered by the 2016 Columbia Agreement. We will also be required to pay tiered royalties to Columbia University in the low‑ to mid‑single digit percentages on our, our affiliates’ and our sublicensees’ net sales of licensed products, subject to specified offsets and reductions. In addition, we are required to make specified annual minimum royalty payments to Columbia University in the mid six figures beginning on the 10th anniversary of the effective date of the agreement. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have not granted any sublicenses under the 2016 Columbia Agreement. However, if we sublicense the rights granted under the 2016 Columbia Agreement to one or more third parties, we will be required to pay to Columbia University a portion of the net sublicensing revenue received from such third parties, at percentages between 10% and 20%, depending on the stage of development at the time such revenue is received from such third parties.

Columbia University is responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents, in consultation with us, and subject to a requirement to give due consideration to our comments, at our expense. We have the first right, but not the obligation, to control the enforcement of licensed patents exclusively licensed to us against third parties. We are required to indemnify Columbia University for any third party claims that arise from or relate to the 2016 Columbia Agreement.

The 2016 Columbia Agreement will terminate upon the expiration of all our royalty payment obligations in all countries. We may terminate the 2016 Columbia Agreement for convenience upon 90 days’ written notice to Columbia University. At its election, Columbia University may terminate the 2016 Columbia Agreement, or convert the licenses granted to us into non‑exclusive, non‑sublicensable licenses, in the case of (a) our uncured material breach upon 30 days’ written notice (which shall be extended to 90 days if we are diligently attempting to cure such material breach), (b) our failure to achieve the specified development and funding milestone events, or (c) our insolvency. The 2016 Columbia Agreement may not be assigned by us without Columbia University’s consent, except to any successor to all or substantially all of our business to which the 2016 Columbia Agreement relates and upon notice to Columbia University.

 

In January 2019, the Company entered into a second license agreement with Columbia University (the “2019 Columbia Agreement”). Pursuant to the 2019 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University granted the Company a royalty-bearing, sublicensable license that is exclusive with respect to certain patents, and non-exclusive with respect to certain know-how, in each case to develop, manufacture and commercialize PI3k inhibitor products. The license grant is worldwide. Under the 2019 Columbia Agreement, the Company is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, discover, develop and market licensed products for commercial sale in the licensed territory, and to comply with certain obligations to meet specified development and funding milestones within defined time periods. Columbia University retains the right to conduct, and grant third parties the right to conduct, non-clinical academic research using the licensed technology; provided that such research is not funded by a commercial entity or for-profit entity or results in rights granted to a commercial or for-profit entity. As consideration for entering into the 2019 Columbia Agreement, the Company made a nominal upfront payment to Columbia University.  The Company will be required to make further payments to Columbia University of up to an aggregate of $1.3 million for the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, and up to an aggregate of $1.0 million for the achievement of a specified level of aggregate annual net sales, in each case in connection with products covered by the 2019 Columbia Agreement. The Company will

also be required to pay tiered royalties to Columbia University in the low- to mid-single digit percentages on the Company’s, its affiliates’ and its sublicensees’ net sales of licensed products, subject to specified offsets and reductions. In addition, the Company is required to make specified annual minimum royalty payments to Columbia University, which is contingent upon the approval of the licensed products, in the mid-six figures beginning on the tenth anniversary of the effective date of the 2019 Columbia Agreement.

 

The Company has not granted any sublicenses under the 2019 Columbia Agreement. However, if the Company sublicenses the rights granted under the 2019 Columbia Agreement to one or more third parties, it will be required to pay Columbia University a portion of the net sublicensing revenue received from such third parties, at percentages between 10% and 50%, depending on the stage of development at the time such revenue is received from such third parties. The 2019 Columbia Agreement will terminate upon the expiration of all the Company’s royalty payment obligations in all countries. The Company may terminate the 2019 Columbia Agreement for convenience upon 90 days’ written notice to Columbia University. At its election, Columbia University may terminate the 2019 Columbia Agreement, or convert the licenses granted to the Company into non-exclusive, non-sublicensable licenses, in the case of (a) the Company’s uncured material breach upon 30 days’ written notice (which shall be extended to 90 days if the Company is diligently attempting to cure such material breach), (b) the Company’s failure to achieve the specified development and funding milestone events, or (c) the Company’s insolvency.

 

In March 2019, and in connection with the 2016 Columbia Agreement, we entered into a research services agreement (the “2019 Columbia Research Agreement”) with Columbia University with the purpose of analyzing structural and functional changes in brain tissue in an animal model of galactosemia, and the effects of certain compounds whose intellectual property rights were licensed to us as part of the 2016 Columbia Agreement on any such structural and functional changes. The 2019 Columbia Research Agreement has a term of 12 months from its effective date; provided that we can terminate the 2019 Columbia Research Agreement without cause with at least 30 days’ prior written notice. The services covered by the 2019 Columbia Research Agreement will be performed by Columbia University in two parts (Part 1 and Part 2) of six months each. The decision to proceed with Part 2 of the 2019 Columbia Research Agreement shall be made solely by us and will be contingent on the success of the research performed in Part 1. In consideration for the services performed by Columbia University in Part 1, we will be required to pay $0.1 million to Columbia University for staffing, supplies and indirect costs. If we decide to continue the research defined in Part 2, we will be required to pay an additional $0.2 million to Columbia University. To the extent new intellectual property is developed under the 2019 Columbia Research Agreement that we elect to license from Columbia University, we may be required to pay Columbia University additional consideration for such rights. The 2019 Columbia Research Agreement may not be assigned by us without Columbia University’s consent, except to any successor to all or substantially all of our business to which the 2019 Columbia Research Agreement relates or to an affiliate, in each case upon notice to Columbia University.

 

On October 3, 2019, and in connection with the 2019 Columbia Agreement, the Company entered into a research services agreement (the “PI3k Columbia Research Agreement” and collectively with the 2016 Columbia Agreement, 2019 Columbia Agreement and 2019 Research Agreement, the “Columbia Agreements”) with Columbia University with the purpose of analyzing PI3k inhibitors for the treatment of lymphoid malignancies. The research service agreement has a term of 18 months from is effective date; provided that the Company can terminate the research service agreement without cause with at least 30 days prior written notice. Midway through the study period, the Company and Columbia University will review the results of all completed and in progress research and determine whether the research will continue. In consideration for the services performed by Columbia University, the Company will be required to pay $0.4 million to Columbia University for staffing, supplies and indirect costs.

 

Sales and Marketing

Given our stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization or distribution capabilities. We intend to build a commercial infrastructure to support sales of our product candidates in the United States. We expect to manage sales, marketing and distribution through internal resources and third party relationships. While we may commit significant financial and management resources to commercial activities, we will also consider collaborating with one or more pharmaceutical companies to enhance our commercial capabilities. Outside the United States, we plan to seek pharmaceutical partners for sales and marketing activities.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We depend on third party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for all of our requirements of raw materials, drug substance and drug product for our preclinical research and our clinical trials for AT‑001, AT‑007 and AT‑003. We have not entered into long‑term agreements with our current CMOs. We intend to continue to rely on CMOs for later‑stage development and commercialization of our current products, as well as the development and commercialization of any other product candidates that we may identify. Although we rely on CMOs, we have personnel and third party consultants with extensive manufacturing experience to oversee the relationships with our contract manufacturers.

We believe the synthesis of the drug substance for AT‑001 and AT‑007 are reliable and reproducible from readily available starting materials, and the synthetic routes are amenable to large‑scale production and do not require unusual equipment or handling in the manufacturing process. We have obtained adequate supplies of the drug substance for AT‑001 and AT‑007 to satisfy our immediate clinical and preclinical demands.

Drug product formulation development for AT‑001 is in progress. We have contracted with a third party manufacturer capable of both formulation development and drug product manufacturing through commercialization. We may identify a second drug product manufacturer in the future to add additional capacity and redundancy to our supply chain. In our completed Phase 1 SAD/MAD clinical trial of AT‑001, we developed and utilized a rapid release capsule formulation filled with API powder. AT‑007 is dosed as a powder in a capsule for adult treatment, and we will develop a dose suspension formulation for future pediatric treatment.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, the expertise of our executive and scientific team, research, clinical capabilities, development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market, expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales, marketing and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early‑stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

There are currently no therapies approved to treat DbCM. Entresto, a drug developed by Novartis International AG, or Novartis, is approved for acute heart failure, which can be caused by many conditions, including DbCM. However, we are aware that Novartis may be pursuing a label expansion for earlier treatment of generalized heart failure, which may overlap with our target disease stages in DbCM. Additionally, sponsors of sodium‑glucose cotransporter‑2, or SGLT2, inhibitors are pursuing broad cardiovascular labels in type 2 diabetes patients, which may include a subset of DbCM patients as part of the larger diabetic population at risk for heart failure. We are also aware of planned Phase 2 clinical trials on glucagon‑like peptide‑1, or GLP‑1, agonists in DbCM, as well as anti‑fibrotic therapies in Phase 1 clinical development. Many of these programs are sponsored by large pharmaceutical companies with a strong presence in cardiology and metabolic disease. Additionally, stem‑cell targeted initiatives are in various stages of preclinical and early clinical development to stimulate regeneration of cardiac tissue to counter fibrosis in DbCM. There have been prior studies demonstrating effectiveness in DbCM of off‑label use of sildenafil, although we do not believe this represents a commercially viable competitive threat.

There are no disease modifying therapies approved to treat DPN outside of Japan, India and China. In these limited markets, epalrestat, another ARI, is approved to prevent worsening of DPN, and despite challenges in compliance due to frequent dosing three to five times daily, the drugs are generic and offer a low cost alternative. A more effective therapy with improved tolerability and dosing may offer an advantage. A re‑formulation of proprietary crystalline epalrestat, BNV‑222, is in development for DPN in Russia in a 12‑month Phase 2/₃ clinical trial, which completed enrollment in 2016, but has not yet reported any results.

There are currently no therapies approved to treat galactosemia. Due to the importance of GALK and GALT enzymes within neurons in the CNS, we believe that enzyme replacement therapy is not an effective approach in this indication. Additionally, numerous mutations across ethnicities are responsible for loss of function in GALK or GALT, which presents significant challenges to potential gene editing approaches.

There are several therapies approved to treat severe or late‑stage forms of DR, or proliferative DR, such as diabetic macular edema and proliferative DR, including anti‑VEGF therapies, Lucentis and Eylea, which represents approximately 20% of the larger DR population. There are currently no therapies approved to treat non‑proliferative DR, an earlier stage of the disease upstream of vessel or capillary proliferation. However, there are significant additional clinical development efforts for other mechanistic interventions in early‑stage or for non‑proliferative DR.

The following table summarizes the current competitive landscape for our initial target indications:

 

Intellectual Property

Our intellectual property is critical to our business and we strive to protect it, including by obtaining and maintaining patent protection in the United States and internationally for our product candidates, new therapeutic approaches and potential indications, and other inventions that are important to our business. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary and intellectual property position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important for the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know‑how that is not patentable, we rely on confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. We require our employees, consultants and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information and requiring disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business.

Our patent portfolio includes patents and patent applications that are exclusively licensed from Columbia University and patent applications that are owned by us. Our patent portfolio includes patents and patent applications that cover our product candidates AT‑001, AT‑003, AT‑007 and AT‑104, and the use of these candidates for therapeutic

purposes in certain territories. Our proprietary technology has been developed primarily through relationships with academic research centers and contract research organizations.

For our product candidates, we will, in general, initially pursue patent protection covering compositions of matter and methods of use. Throughout the development of our product candidates, we seek to identify additional means of obtaining patent protection that would potentially enhance commercial success, including through additional methods of use, process of making, formulation and dosing regimen‑related claims.

In total, our patent portfolio, including patents licensed from Columbia University and patents owned by us, comprises eight different patent families, filed in various jurisdictions worldwide, including families directed to composition of matter for AR inhibitors, and a family directed to methods of treating galactosemia and complications associated with galactosemia using AR inhibitors. Our patent portfolio includes issued patents in the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada. Our patent portfolio is outlined below:

Composition of Matter Patents

AT‑001 and AT‑003.  As of January 10, 2020, we have exclusively licensed from Columbia University a patent family that includes three issued patents in the United States, 44 issued patents in Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia, two pending applications in the United States that claim the composition of matter of and certain methods of use with respect to AT‑001 and AT‑003. The 20‑year term of the patents in this family runs through July 2031, absent any available patent term adjustments or extensions.

AT‑007.  We have exclusively licensed a patent family from Columbia University that includes an issued composition of matter patent in the United States and a pending European patent application that claim the composition of matter of and certain methods of use with respect to AT‑007. In addition, we have also filed applications in Japan, China, Canada, Australia, Russia, Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa and Hong Kong. The 20‑year term of patents in this family runs through June 2037, absent any available patent term adjustments or extensions.

AT‑104.  We have exclusively licensed an early‑stage patent family from Columbia University that currently includes one pending international patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, that claims the composition of matter of and certain methods of use with respect to AT‑104. We intend to file national phase applications based on this PCT application before applicable deadlines. The 20‑year term of any patents in this family that may issue will run through July 2038, absent any available patent term adjustments or extensions.

Methods for Treating Galactosemia

We own a pending PCT patent application that claims methods for treating galactosemia and preventing complications associated with galactosemia using AT‑007 and other inhibitors of AR. We plan to file national stage applications in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions before the deadlines to file such applications. No patents have issued to date, but we expect that the 20‑year term of patents that do issue in this family will run through July 2038, absent any available patent term adjustments or extensions.

We expect to file future patent applications on innovations that are developed in the course of advancing our pipeline through preclinical and clinical development.

Patent Term and Term Extensions

Individual patents have terms for varying periods depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, utility patents issued for applications filed in the United States are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest effective filing date of a non‑provisional patent application. In addition, in certain instances, the term of a U.S. patent can be extended to recapture a portion of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, delay in issuing the patent as well as a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. However, as to the FDA

component, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the restoration period cannot extend the patent term beyond 14 years from FDA approval. In addition, only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method of manufacturing may be extended. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. All taxes, annuities or maintenance fees for a patent, as required by the USPTO and various foreign jurisdictions, must be timely paid in order for the patent to remain in force during this period of time.

The actual protection afforded by a patent may vary on a product by product basis, from country to country, and can depend upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory‑related extensions and the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

Our patents and patent applications may be subject to procedural or legal challenges by others. We may be unable to obtain, maintain and protect the intellectual property rights necessary to conduct our business, and we may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of others, which could materially harm our business. For more information, see the section titled “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Trademarks and Know‑How

In connection with the ongoing development and advancement of our products and services in the United States and various international jurisdictions, we seek to create protection for our marks and enhance their value by pursuing trademarks and service marks where available and when appropriate. In addition to patent and trademark protection, we rely upon know‑how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed by our employees and through relationships with third parties. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our contractors, commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know‑how and inventions. For more information, see the section titled “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local levels, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, quality control, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export of pharmaceutical products, such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

United States Government Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or 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 requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the drug development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to delays and a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve a pending New Drug Application, or NDA, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product

seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties.

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

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold or a partial clinical hold.

In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to 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 commences at that

institution, and the IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted and reapprove the study at least annually. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined. In Phase 1, 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 initial indication of its effectiveness. In Phase 2, the drug typically 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 and optimal dosage. In Phase 3, 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 safety and efficacy 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 clinical 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. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product, and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements, or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes 12 months from the date the NDA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision. The FDA may further extend the review process for three additional months to consider new information provided by the applicant to address any outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, certain NDAs or supplements to an NDA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

The FDA also may require submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, plan to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the

additional information. 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 review. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. These pre‑approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including component manufacturing, finished product manufacturing and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements.

The testing and approval process for an NDA requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and takes several years to complete. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The FDA may not grant approval of an NDA on a timely basis, or at all.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post‑approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post‑marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000, there is no reasonable expectation that sales of the drug in the United States will be sufficient to offset the costs of developing and making the drug available in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If the FDA approves a sponsor’s marketing application for a designated orphan drug for use in the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the sponsor is eligible for a seven‑year period of marketing exclusivity, during which the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for a drug with the same active moiety and intended for the same use or indication as the approved orphan drug, except in limited circumstances, such as if a subsequent sponsor demonstrates its product is clinically superior. During a sponsor’s orphan drug exclusivity period, competitors, however, may receive approval for drugs with different active moieties for the same indication as the approved orphan drug, or for drugs with the same active moiety as the approved orphan drug, but for different indications. Orphan drug exclusivity could block the approval of one of our product candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for a drug with the same active moiety intended for the same indication before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that grounds for withdrawal of the orphan drug exclusivity exist, such as that our product is clinically superior. Further, if a designated orphan drug receives marketing approval for an indication broader than the rare disease or condition for which it received orphan drug designation, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. The FDA may review sections of the NDA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted. The FDA may do so if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that are designed to treat serious conditions, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines. Under the current PDUFA agreement, these six and ten‑month review periods are measured from the “filing” date rather than the receipt date for NDAs for new molecular entities, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review and decision from the date of submission. Most products that are eligible for fast track designation are also likely to be considered appropriate to receive a priority review.

Rare pediatric disease, or RPD, designation by the FDA enables priority review voucher, or PRV, eligibility upon U.S. market approval of a designated drug for rare pediatric diseases. The RPD‑PRV program is intended to encourage development of therapies to prevent and treat rare pediatric diseases. The voucher, which is awarded upon NDA or Biologics License Application, or BLA, approval to the sponsor of a designated RPD can be sold or transferred to another entity and used by the holder to receive priority review for a future NDA or BLA submission, which reduces the FDA review time of such future submission from ten to six months.

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life‑threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may be eligible for accelerated approval. To qualify, the FDA must determine that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform

post‑marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

Breakthrough therapy designation is for a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our product candidates as appropriate.

Post‑Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes or other labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a boxed warning, require that post‑approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post‑marketing studies or surveillance programs.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

The FDA may also subject a drug to official lot release, which requires manufacturers to submit several items to the FDA with respect to each lot of a drug before it is released to distribution. These items include samples of each lot, a summary of the manufacturing history of the lot and the results of any tests performed on the lot.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post‑market studies or

clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label, although physicians, in the practice of medicine, may prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting their promotion of off‑label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off‑label uses may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative liability.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Federal and State Fraud and Abuse, Data Privacy and Security, and Transparency Laws and Regulations

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations restrict business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our current and future business operations, including our clinical research activities and proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships with healthcare providers and other parties through which we may market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. These laws include anti‑kickback and false claims laws and regulations, data privacy and security, and transparency laws and regulations, including, without limitation, those laws described below.

The federal Anti‑Kickback Statute prohibits any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. 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 a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the statute has been violated.

A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting

from a violation of the federal Anti‑Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties laws.

Federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalties laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, which can be enforced by individuals through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, prohibits any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of products for unapproved, and thus non‑reimbursable, uses.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third party payors 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. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, impose specified requirements on certain types of individuals and entities relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities, which include certain healthcare providers, healthcare clearinghouses and health plans, that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable 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 HIPAA 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 are not pre‑empted by HIPAA, differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

We may also be subject to 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, state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures, and state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State legislatures are increasingly focused on pharmaceutical company activities, and we may be subject to additional new state or federal legislative requirements in the future that could impact our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if they are approved.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties

including damages, fines, individual imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non‑compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our product candidates are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post‑marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti‑fraud and abuse laws, implementation of corporate compliance programs, reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals, and additional data privacy and security requirements.

Coverage and Reimbursement

The future commercial success of our product candidates, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which third party payors, such as governmental payor programs at the federal and state levels, including Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third party payors, provide coverage of and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our product candidates. Third party payors generally decide which products they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels for those products. In particular, in the United States, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists. Private health insurers and other third party payors often provide coverage and reimbursement for products based on the level at which the government, through the Medicare program, provides coverage and reimbursement for such products, but also on their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

In the United States, the European Union, or EU, and other potentially significant markets for our product candidates, government authorities and third party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of products, particularly for new and innovative products, which often has resulted in average selling prices lower than they would otherwise be. Further, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the United States and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the EU will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, judicial decisions and laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical coverage and reimbursement policies and pricing in general.

Third party payors are increasingly imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage and limiting reimbursement levels for products. For example, federal and state governments reimburse products at varying rates generally below average wholesale price. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of products. Third party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA‑approved products for a particular indication. Third party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost‑effectiveness of products, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost‑effectiveness of our product candidates, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost‑effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third party payor reimbursement may not be available to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government insurance programs may result in lower reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, or exclusion of our product candidates from coverage and reimbursement. The cost containment measures that third party payors and providers are instituting and any healthcare reform could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any approved product candidates.

Healthcare Reform

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering enacting or have enacted a number of additional legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our product candidates. The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering enacting or have enacted a number of additional legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably, if approved. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and

elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts, which include major legislative initiatives to reduce the cost of care through changes in the healthcare system, including limits on the pricing, coverage, and reimbursement of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, especially under government‑funded healthcare programs, and increased governmental control of drug pricing.

There have been several U.S. government initiatives over the past few years to fund and incentivize certain comparative effectiveness research, including creation of the Patient‑Centered Outcomes Research Institute under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the PPACA. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates.

The PPACA became law in March 2010 and substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by third party payors, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Among other measures that may have an impact on our business, the PPACA establishes an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program; and a new formula that increases the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Additionally, the PPACA extends manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability, expands eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs, and expands entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service Act. At this time, we are unsure of the full impact that the PPACA will have on our business.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the PPACA, and we expect such challenges and amendments to continue. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain PPACA provisions or otherwise circumvent requirements for health insurance mandated by the PPACA. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the PPACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the PPACA have been signed into law. The Tax Act includes a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax‑based shared responsibility payment imposed by the PPACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain PPACA‑mandated fees, including the so‑called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer‑sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on nonexempt medical devices. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the PPACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50% to 70% the point‑of‑sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” In July 2018, CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain PPACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the PPACA adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. In December 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, or Texas District Court Judge, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the PPACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the PPACA are invalid as well. On December 18, 2019, a three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision on the appeal of that ruling, holding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and remanding the case to the Texas District Court Judge to consider certain questions. It is unclear how these decisions, subsequent decisions and appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the PPACA will impact the PPACA.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. In August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended, which, among other things, included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which began in 2013 and, following passage of subsequent legislation, including the BBA, will continue through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was enacted which, among

other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Further, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low‑income patients. Additionally, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The HHS has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and is implementing others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs, beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified the CMS policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. Although a number of these and other proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. In particular, on September 25, 2019, the Senate Finance Committee introduced the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Action of 2019, a bill intended to reduce Medicare and Medicaid prescription drug prices, which would restructure the Medicare Part D benefit, modify payment methodologies for certain drugs, and impose an inflation cap on drug price increases. An even more restrictive bill, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, was introduced in the House of Representatives on September 19, 2019, and would require the HHS to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. It is unclear whether either of these bills will make it through both chambers and be signed into law, and if either is enacted, what effect it would have on our business.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine which drugs and suppliers will be included in their healthcare programs. These measures could reduce future demand for our products or put pressure on our pricing.

Additionally, in May 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Foreign Regulation

In order to market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of our product candidates. For example, in the EU, we must obtain authorization of a clinical trial application, or CTA, in each member state in which we intend to conduct a clinical trial. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a drug, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the drug in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries

might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, and we are not aware of any pending or threatened legal proceeding against us that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

Facilities

We currently are in a five-year lease for the space for our principal executive offices in New York, New York. We believe that our facilities are adequate to meet our current needs.

Information About Our Executive Officers

The following table sets forth information regarding our executive officers:

 

Shoshana Shendelman, Ph.D. is our founder and has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer and as chair of our board of directors since January 2016. Prior to founding our company, she founded Clearpoint Strategy Group LLC, a boutique life sciences consulting firm, where she served as the Managing Director from July 2012 to December 2016, and served as a Senior Advisor from January 2017 to December 2018. Prior to that, she served as a scientific consultant and analyst at Bridge Scientific Consulting LLC. Dr. Shendelman received her B.S. in biochemistry from Brandeis University and a Ph.D. in Cellular, Molecular and Biophysical Studies (CMBS) from Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons. We believe that Dr. Shendelman’s extensive knowledge of our company as founder, President and Chief Executive Officer and her management background and experience in the healthcare industry qualifies her to serve on our board of directors.

 

Riccardo Perfetti, M.D., Ph.D. has served as our Chief Medical Officer since August 2018. Prior to joining us, Dr. Perfetti served as a Senior Medical Officer, Vice President and Head of Global Medical Affairs, Diabetes and Cardiovascular Business Unit at Sanofi S.A., a publicly traded pharmaceutical company from October 2007 to September 2018. Prior to joining Sanofi, Dr. Perfetti served in various roles at Amgen Inc., a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company, including as a Director and Global Development Leader in diabetes, obesity, metabolism and endocrinology from December 2004 to August 2007. Dr. Perfetti was previously an associate professor of medicine at University of California in Los Angeles and a professor of medicine at the National Institutes of Health, or NIH.    Dr. Perfetti practiced as an endocrinologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and also served as Director of the Diabetes Research Laboratory and Director of the Outpatient Diabetes Program. Dr. Perfetti received his M.D. and Ph.D. in Endocrinology from University La Sapienza in Rome, Italy and received post-graduate training in endocrinology and molecular biology at NIH.

 

Mark J. Vignola, Ph.D. has served as our Chief Financial Officer since April 2019. Prior to joining the company, from June 2015 to April 2019, he was Executive Director and Head of Corporate Development and Investor Relations at Intercept Pharmaceuticals, a biopharmaceutical company. From July 2011 to May 2015, he was a member of the biotechnology equity research team at Needham and Co. Dr. Vignola received his B.S. in biology from Boston College and a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics and Microbiology from Duke University.

 

Adam Hansard has served as our Chief Commercial Officer since March 2020. Prior to joining the company, from March 2019 to February 2020, he was Senior Director of New Product Strategy at Alexion Pharmaceuticals, a biopharmaceutical company. From February 2018 to March 2019, he was Vice President of Business Operations at Syntimmune, a clinical-stage biotech purchased by Alexion in Nov. 2018. From January 2012 to March 2018, Mr. Hansard worked at Sanofi Genzyme, a biotechnology company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Sanofi, a publicly traded, multinational pharmaceutical company, where he served as the North American Senior Director, Chief of Staff of MS Oncology and Immunology and the Senior Director of MS Brand Communications. Mr. Hansard received his Masters in Business Communication from Jones International University and his B.S. in Marketing from the University of West Florida.

 

Employees

As of December 31, 2019, we had 11 full-time employees, seven of whom were primarily engaged in research and development activities. A total of five employees have an M.D. or Ph.D. degree. None of our employees are represented by a labor union and we consider our employee relations to be good.

 

Other Information

 

We were incorporated in Delaware in January 2016 and completed the IPO in May 2019. Our principal executive offices are located at 545 5th Avenue, Suite 1400, New York, New York 10017, and our telephone number is (212) 220-9226.

 

We maintain a website at www.appliedtherapeutics.com. The contents of our website are not incorporated in, or otherwise to be regarded as part of, this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, “Applied Therapeutics,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” “our” and the “ registrant” refer to Applied Therapeutics, Inc.

 

Investors and others should note that we announce material financial information to our investors using our investor relations website (http://ir.appliedtherapeutics.com), SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls and webcasts.

ITEM 1A.         RISK FACTORS.

An investment in shares of our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following information about these risks described below, together with other information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and the related notes and the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations and the market price of our common stock.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception in January 2016, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net loss was $45.6 million and $16.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $66.8 million. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. Since inception, we have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates, organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, establishing our intellectual property portfolio and conducting clinical trials. To date, we have never obtained regulatory approval for, or commercialized, any drugs. It could be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized drug. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company, including significant legal, accounting, investor relations and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing drugs that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of our current and future product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval, procuring commercial‑scale manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we obtain regulatory approval (including through third parties), as well as discovering or acquiring and developing additional product candidates. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are sufficient to offset our expenses and achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. If we are required by regulatory authorities to perform studies in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in the initiation and completion of our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates, our expenses could increase.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our common stock could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We are a clinical‑stage company with limited operational history, and our operations to date have been largely focused on raising capital, organizing and staffing our company, identifying and developing our product candidates, and undertaking preclinical and clinical development for our product candidates. As an organization, we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete clinical development, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial‑scale product or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization, or arrange for a third party to conduct these activities on our behalf. Consequently, any predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

Additionally, we expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance.

We will require substantial additional funding to finance our operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or terminate certain of our development programs or other operations.

As of December 31, 2019, our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities was $38.9 million. In January 2020, we received $134.9 million of net proceeds from the issuance of common stock upon the completion of the Secondary Public Offering, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses. Based on our current operating and research and development plans, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities as of December 31, 2019, along with the capital that was raised in January 2020 as part of the Secondary Public Offering will be sufficient to fund our projected operations through at least the next 12 months from the date the financial statements were issued. However, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations and planned research and clinical development activities. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

 

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time‑consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of drugs that we do not expect to be commercially available for several years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or altogether terminate our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders and restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs through public or private equity or debt financings, third party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements, as well as other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements, or any combination of these approaches. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest in our company may be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt and equity financings, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as redeeming our shares, making investments, incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, declaring dividends or placing limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights.

If we raise additional capital through future collaborations, strategic alliances or third party licensing arrangements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our intellectual property, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise

additional capital when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our drug development or future commercialization efforts, or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise develop and market ourselves.

Our ability to use our net operating losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

We have incurred substantial losses since inception and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, if ever. In general, under Section 382 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre‑change NOLs to offset future taxable income. We may have experienced ownership changes in the past and may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership (some of which shifts are outside our control). As a result, if, and to the extent that we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre‑change NOLs to offset such taxable income may be subject to limitations.

For NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, the Code limits a taxpayer’s ability to utilize NOL carryforwards to 80% of taxable income. In addition, NOLs arising in tax years ending after December 31, 2017 can be carried forward indefinitely, but carryback is generally prohibited. NOLs generated in tax years beginning before January 1, 2018 will not be subject to the taxable income limitation, and NOLs generated in tax years ending before January 1, 2018 will continue to have a two‑year carryback and 20‑year carryforward period. Deferred tax assets for NOLs will need to be measured at the applicable tax rate in effect when the NOL is expected to be utilized. The limitations in the carryforward/carryback periods, as well as the limitation on use of NOLs for NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 may significantly impact our ability to utilize our NOLs to offset taxable income in the future.

In order to realize the future tax benefits of our NOL carryforwards, we must generate taxable income, of which there is no assurance. Accordingly, we have a full valuation allowance for deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2018 and 2019.

Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our future success is substantially dependent on the successful clinical development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates. If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates and our ability to generate product revenue will be adversely affected.

We have invested a significant portion of our time and financial resources in the development of AT‑001, AT‑003 and AT‑007. Our business is dependent on our ability to successfully complete development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, successfully commercialize our product candidates in a timely manner. We may face unforeseen challenges in our drug development strategy, and we can provide no assurances that our drug design will prove to be effective, that we will be able to take advantage of expedited regulatory pathways for any of our product candidates, or that we will ultimately be successful in our future clinical trials.

We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will not obtain regulatory approval. Neither we nor any future collaborator is permitted to market any product candidates in the United States or abroad until we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory agency. The time required to obtain approval or other marketing authorizations by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable and typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions.

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize any product candidate in the United States or abroad, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well‑controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidate is safe and effective for its intended uses. Results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe that the preclinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post‑approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program, requiring their alteration.

Of the large number of products in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval or marketing authorization process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval or marketing authorization to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of a new drug application, or NDA, or foreign marketing application for our product candidates, the FDA or the comparable foreign regulatory authorities may grant approval or other marketing authorization contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including post‑market clinical trials. The FDA or the comparable foreign regulatory authorities also may approve or authorize for marketing a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population than we originally request, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not approve or authorize the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval or other marketing authorization would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would adversely impact our business and prospects.

In addition, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may change their policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations or take other actions, which may prevent or delay approval of our future product candidates under development on a timely basis. Such policy or regulatory changes could impose additional requirements upon us that could delay our ability to obtain approvals, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations we may have obtained.

Furthermore, even if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will still need to develop a commercial organization, establish a commercially viable pricing structure and obtain approval for coverage and adequate reimbursement from third party and government payors, including government health administration authorities. If we are unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business.

The development of additional product candidates is risky and uncertain, and we can provide no assurances that we will be able to replicate our approach to drug development for other disease indications.

Efforts to identify, acquire or in‑license, and then develop, product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are ultimately identified. Our efforts may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development, approved products or commercial revenues for many reasons, including the following:

We have limited financial and management resources and, as a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater market potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial drugs or profitable market opportunities. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in circumstances under which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. In addition, we may not be successful in replicating our approach to drug development for other disease indications. If we are unsuccessful in identifying and developing additional product candidates or are unable to do so, our business may be harmed.

Success in preclinical studies or earlier clinical trials may not be indicative of results in future clinical trials and we cannot assure you that any ongoing, planned or future clinical trials will lead to results sufficient for the necessary regulatory approvals.

Success in preclinical testing and earlier clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate the same results or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of a product candidate. Preclinical studies and Phase 1 clinical trials are primarily designed to test safety, to study pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and to understand the side effects of product candidates at various doses and schedules. Success in preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials does not ensure that later efficacy trials will be successful, nor does it predict final results. Our product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through earlier clinical trials.

In addition, the design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product, and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. As an organization, we have limited experience designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support regulatory approval. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late‑stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of our product candidate development. Any such delays could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process. We may incur additional costs and encounter substantial delays or difficulties in our clinical trials.

We may not commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA or other comparable regulatory authority, and we may never receive such approvals. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans and will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, is difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. For example, we intend to conduct an additional Phase 1 clinical trial of AT‑007 for the treatment of galactosemia in a pediatric population upon successful completion of the Phase 1 clinical trial in adults. Successful completion of the trial in adults may take longer than we expect, and the FDA may express additional concerns or require additional trials in adults, which may delay our clinical development plans for AT‑007.

A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events prior to, during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including the following:

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue from future drug sales or other sources. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional testing to bridge our modified product candidate to earlier versions. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, or allow our competitors to bring competing drugs to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, if the results of our clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may:

 

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, need to be restructured or be completed on schedule, if at all.

Further, we, the FDA or an IRB may suspend our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we or our collaborators are failing to conduct a trial in accordance with regulatory requirements, including the FDA’s current Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, regulations, that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks, or if the FDA finds deficiencies in our investigational new drug applications, or INDs, or the conduct of these trials. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of future clinical trials. If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, the commercial prospects of our product candidates could be negatively impacted, and our ability to generate revenues from our product candidates may be delayed.

All of our current product candidates that have proceeded to clinical trials target inhibition of aldose reductase. There can be no assurance that aldose reductase inhibitors will ever receive regulatory approval.

All of our current product candidates that have proceeded to clinical trials target inhibition of the aldose reductase enzyme. There are no currently approved aldose reductase inhibitors on the market outside of Japan, India and China, and there can be no assurance that aldose reductase inhibitors will ever receive regulatory approval in all other countries, including the United States. Prior attempts to inhibit this enzyme were hindered by nonselective, nonspecific inhibition, which resulted in limited efficacy and significant off‑target safety effects. Our current product candidates, including AT‑001, AT‑003 and AT‑007, may face similar or different challenges that prevent their successful commercialization.

We may not be able to obtain or maintain rare pediatric disease designation or exclusivity for our product candidates, which could limit the potential profitability of our product candidates.

We have obtained orphan drug designation, and we may seek rare pediatric disease designation, from the FDA for AT‑007 for the treatment of galactosemia. The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as a disease or condition that either affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals, there is no reasonable expectation that sales of the drug in the United States will be sufficient to offset the costs of developing and making the drug available in the United States. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

For the purposes of the rare pediatric disease program, a “rare pediatric disease” is a serious or life‑threatening disease in which the serious or life‑threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years or a rare disease or conditions within the meaning of the Orphan Drug Act. Under the FDA’s rare pediatric disease priority review voucher, or RPD‑PRV, program, upon the approval of an NDA for the treatment of a rare pediatric disease, the sponsor of such application would be eligible for an RPD‑PRV that can be used to obtain priority review for a subsequent NDA. The sponsor of the application may transfer (including by sale) the RPD‑PRV to another sponsor. The voucher may be further transferred any number of times before the voucher is used, as long as the sponsor making the transfer has not yet submitted the application. Congress has extended the RPD‑PRV program until September 30, 2020, with potential for vouchers to be granted until 2022. This program has been subject to criticism, including by the FDA. As such, it is possible that even if we obtain approval for AT‑007 for the treatment of galactosemia and qualify for a RPD‑PRV, the program may no longer be in effect at the time of approval. Also, although priority review vouchers may be sold or transferred to third parties, there is no guaranty that we will be able to realize any value if we obtained, and subsequently were able to sell, a priority review voucher.

A breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA for a product candidate may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it would not increase the likelihood that the product candidate will receive marketing approval.

We may seek a breakthrough therapy designation for one or more product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a product candidate that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Product candidates designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time of the submission of the NDA.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and it would not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or it may decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

We may seek fast track designation from the FDA for AT‑001 for DbCM. Even if granted, fast track designation may not actually lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process.

If a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life‑threatening condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet needs for this condition, the sponsor may apply for FDA fast track designation. If fast track designation is obtained, the FDA may prioritize interactions with the sponsor concerning the designated development program and initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application is complete, known as “rolling review.” Fast track designation would not ensure that we would experience a faster development, regulatory review or approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures or that we would ultimately obtain regulatory approval. Additionally, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We intend to seek approval from the FDA through the use of accelerated registration pathways. If we are unable to obtain approval under an accelerated pathway, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, which could increase the expense of obtaining, reduce the likelihood of obtaining and/or delay the timing of obtaining, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive approval from the FDA to utilize an

accelerated registration pathway, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post‑marketing requirements, the FDA may seek to withdraw accelerated approval.

We intend to seek an accelerated approval development pathway for our product candidates. Under the accelerated approval provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and the FDA’s implementing regulations, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product designed to treat a serious or life‑threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage over available therapies and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval development pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post‑approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical profile or risks and benefits for accelerated approval. The FDA may require that any such confirmatory studies be initiated or substantially underway prior to the submission of an application for accelerated approval. If such post‑approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical profile or risks and benefits, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug. Because we are still in early stages of our clinical trials, we can provide no assurances that our biomarker‑based approach will be successful in demonstrating a causal link to the relevant outcomes we are evaluating. If our approach is not successful, we may be required to conduct longer clinical trials.

If we choose to pursue accelerated approval, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA or will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that, after our evaluation of the feedback from the FDA or other factors, we will decide to pursue or submit an NDA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Furthermore, even if we submit an application for accelerated approval, there can be no assurance that the application will be accepted or that approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA also could require us to conduct further studies or trials prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. We might not be able to fulfill the FDA’s requirements in a timely manner, which would cause delays, or approval might not be granted because our submission is deemed incomplete by the FDA. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for a product candidate would result in a longer time period to commercialize such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, we will be subject to rigorous post‑marketing requirements, including the completion of confirmatory post‑market clinical trial(s) to verify the clinical benefit of the product, and submission to the FDA of all promotional materials prior to their dissemination. The FDA could seek to withdraw accelerated approval for multiple reasons, including if we fail to conduct any required post‑market study with due diligence, a post‑market study does not confirm the predicted clinical benefit, other evidence shows that the product is not safe or effective under the conditions of use, or we disseminate promotional materials that are found by the FDA to be false or misleading.

A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for a product candidate that we may choose to develop would result in a longer time period prior to commercializing such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Enrollment and retention of patients in clinical trials is an expensive and time‑consuming process and could be delayed, made more difficult or rendered impossible by multiple factors outside our control.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in our clinical trials is critical to our success. We may encounter difficulties in enrolling patients in our clinical trials, thereby delaying or preventing development and approval

of our product candidates. Even once enrolled, we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our trials. Patient enrollment and retention in clinical trials depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the existing body of safety and efficacy data, the number and nature of competing treatments and ongoing clinical trials of competing therapies for the same indication, the proximity of patients to clinical sites and the eligibility criteria for the trial. Because our focus includes rare disorders, there are limited patient pools from which to draw in order to complete our clinical trials in a timely and cost‑effective manner. Accordingly, enrollment of our clinical trials could take significantly longer than projected, which would delay any potential approval of our product candidates. Furthermore, even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials, we may have difficulty maintaining enrollment of such patients in our clinical trials.

For example, upon successful completion of the planned Phase 1 clinical trial in adults, we intend to conduct an additional Phase 1 clinical trial of AT‑007 for the treatment of galactosemia in a pediatric population. We are doing this in order to obtain data on patients representing the most vulnerable subset of our intended population. Such pediatric patients may be difficult to enroll in this trial, and the lack of data on these patients may negatively impact the approvability or labeling of galactosemia.

Our efforts to build relationships with patient communities may not succeed, which could result in delays in patient enrollment in our clinical trials. Any negative results we may report in clinical trials of our product candidates may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials of that same product candidate. Delays or failures in planned patient enrollment or retention may result in increased costs, program delays or both, which could have a harmful effect on our ability to develop our product candidates or could render further development impossible. In addition, we may rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical trials and, while we intend to enter into agreements governing their services, we will be limited in our ability to ensure their actual performance.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

During the conduct of clinical trials, patients report changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries and discomforts, to their doctor. Often, it is not possible to determine whether or not the product candidate being studied caused these conditions. Regulatory authorities may draw different conclusions or require additional testing to confirm these determinations, if they occur.

In addition, it is possible that as we test our product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical trials, or as use of these product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events that were observed in earlier trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, will be reported by subjects or patients. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational drugs are tested in large‑scale pivotal trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. If additional clinical experience indicates that any of our product candidates have side effects or cause serious or life‑threatening side effects, the development of the product candidate may fail or be delayed, or, if the product candidate has received regulatory approval, such approval may be revoked, which would harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

Interim, “top‑line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim, “top‑line” or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or “top‑line” data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until

the final data are available. Differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects and may cause the trading price of our common stock to fluctuate significantly.

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our product candidates have not been established with precision. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are or any approval we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our business may suffer.

We currently focus our drug development on product candidates for the treatment of diseases with high unmet medical need. Our eligible patient population and pricing estimates may differ significantly from the actual market addressable by our product candidates. Our estimates of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and analyses. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, patient foundations or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of the diseases we are targeting. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Likewise, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be receptive to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or access. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate, we may not be able to achieve our forecast revenue, which could hinder our business plan and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others developing or commercializing drugs before or more successfully than us.

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive. We may face potential competition with respect to our current product candidates and may face competition with respect to any other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research institutions.

Our competitors may have an advantage over us due to their greater size, resources and institutional experience. In particular, these companies have greater experience and expertise in securing reimbursement, government contracts and relationships with key opinion leaders, conducting testing and clinical trials, obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals and distribution relationships to market products and marketing approved drugs. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do. If we are not able to compete effectively against existing and potential competitors, our business and financial condition may be harmed.

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their drugs before we are able to, which may limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop therapies that are safer, more effective, more widely accepted or less expensive than ours, and may also be more successful than we are in manufacturing and marketing their drugs. These advantages could render our product candidates obsolete or non‑competitive before we can recover the costs of such product candidates’ development and commercialization.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and early‑stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

We may explore strategic collaborations that may never materialize or we may be required to relinquish important rights to and control over the development and commercialization of our product candidates to any future collaborators.

Over time, our business strategy includes acquiring or in‑licensing additional product candidates for treatments of diseases with high unmet medical need. As a result, we intend to periodically explore a variety of possible strategic collaborations in an effort to gain access to additional product candidates or resources. These strategic collaborations may include partnerships with large strategic partners, particularly for the development of DPN treatments using AT‑001. At the current time however, we cannot predict what form such a strategic collaboration might take. We are likely to face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic collaborators, and strategic collaborations can be complicated and time consuming to negotiate and document. We may not be able to negotiate strategic collaborations on acceptable terms, or at all. We are unable to predict when, if ever, we will enter into any strategic collaborations because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with establishing them.

Future collaborations could subject us to a number of risks, including:

Even if any product candidates receive marketing approval, they may fail to achieve market acceptance by physicians, patients, third party payors or others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Even if any product candidates receive marketing approval, they may fail to gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third party payors and others in the medical community. If such product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant drug revenue and may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

Our efforts to educate physicians, patients, third party payors and others in the medical community on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts may require more resources than are typically required due to the complexity and uniqueness of our product candidates. Because we expect sales of our product candidates, if approved, to generate substantially all of our revenues for the foreseeable future, the failure of our product candidates to find market acceptance would harm our business.

Even if we obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates, they will remain subject to ongoing regulatory oversight.

Even if we obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates, such approvals will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record keeping and submission of safety and other post‑market information. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to a REMS, limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post‑marketing testing,

including Phase 4 trials, and surveillance to monitor the quality, safety and efficacy of the drug. Such regulatory requirements may differ from country to country depending on where we have received regulatory approval.

In addition, drug manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements and adherence to commitments made in the NDA or foreign marketing application. If we, or a regulatory authority, discover previously unknown problems with a drug, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the drug is manufactured or if a regulatory authority disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of that drug, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions relative to that drug, the manufacturing facility or us, including requesting a recall or requiring withdrawal of the drug from the market or suspension of manufacturing.

If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of our product candidates, a regulatory authority may:

Moreover, the FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about drug products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s 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 civil, criminal and administrative penalties.

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance with the Cures Act, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, we cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain

policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of executive orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these executive actions, including the executive orders, will be implemented and the extent to which they will affect the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may not be successful in commercializing them, if and when they are approved.

To successfully commercialize any product candidate that may result from our development programs, we will need to build out our sales and marketing capabilities, either on our own or with others. The establishment and development of our own commercial team or the establishment of a contract sales force to market any product candidate we may develop will be expensive and time‑consuming and could delay any drug launch. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop this capability. We may seek to enter into collaborations with other entities to utilize their established marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If any current or future collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our product candidates, or we are unable to develop the necessary capabilities on our own, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to sustain our business. We compete with many companies that currently have extensive, experienced and well‑funded marketing and sales operations to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. We will likely also face competition if we seek third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

Even if we obtain and maintain approval for our product candidates from the FDA, we may never obtain approval outside the United States, which would limit our market opportunities.

Approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. Sales of our product candidates outside the United States will be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical trials and marketing approval. Even if the FDA grants marketing approval for a product candidate, comparable foreign regulatory authorities also must approve the manufacturing and marketing of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and more onerous than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for any product candidates, if approved, is also subject to approval. Obtaining approval for our product candidates in the European Union from the European Commission following the opinion of the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, if we choose to submit a marketing authorization application there, would be a lengthy and expensive process. Even if a product candidate is approved, the EMA may limit the indications for which the drug may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the drug labeling or require expensive and time‑consuming additional clinical trials or reporting as conditions of approval. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries.

Further, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Also, regulatory approval for our product candidates may be withdrawn. If we fail to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be harmed.

If we commercialize our product candidates outside the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could harm our business.

We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates outside the United States, and may do so for future product candidates. If we market approved products outside the United States, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercialization, including:

We have no prior experience in these areas. In addition, there are complex regulatory, tax, labor and other legal requirements imposed by many of the individual countries in which we may operate, with which we will need to comply. Many biopharmaceutical companies have found the process of marketing their products in foreign countries to be challenging.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of any product candidate that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in clinical trials and may face an even greater risk if we commercialize any product candidate that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that any such product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Any such outcomes could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our insurance policies may be inadequate and potentially expose us to unrecoverable risks.

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, such insurance may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage each time we commence a clinical trial and if we successfully commercialize any product candidate. Insurance availability, coverage terms and pricing continue to vary with market conditions. We endeavor to obtain appropriate insurance coverage for insurable risks that we identify; however, we may fail to correctly anticipate or quantify insurable risks, we may not be able to obtain appropriate insurance coverage and insurers may not respond as we intend to cover insurable events that may occur. We have observed rapidly changing conditions in the insurance markets relating to nearly all areas of traditional corporate insurance. Such conditions have resulted in higher premium costs, higher policy deductibles, and lower coverage limits. For some risks, we may not have or maintain insurance coverage because of cost or availability.

Risks Related to Regulatory Compliance

Our relationships with customers, physicians, and third party payors are subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, health information privacy and security laws, and other healthcare laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, principal investigators, consultants, customers and third party payors subject us to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws and other healthcare laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti‑Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal false claims laws and the law commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act and regulations. For additional information on the healthcare laws and regulations that we may be subject to, see “Business — Government Regulation and Product Approval.”

Ensuring that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will likely be costly. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participating in government‑funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of noncompliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

If the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government‑funded healthcare programs. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to healthcare laws and regulations may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common shares. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development,

manufacturing, sales, marketing or distribution activities. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of litigation or other proceedings relating to applicable healthcare laws and regulations could have an adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell profitably, if approved.

Market acceptance and sales of any product candidates that we commercialize, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these drugs and related treatments will be available from third party payors, including government health administration authorities, managed care organizations and other private health insurers. Third party payors decide which therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. While no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, third party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. However, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any product candidates that we develop will be made on a payor‑by‑payor basis. Therefore, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the drug. Additionally, a third party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a therapy, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the therapy, and on what tier of its formulary it will be placed. The position on a payor’s list of covered drugs, or formulary, generally determines the co‑payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the therapy and can strongly influence the adoption of such therapy by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates, if approved, unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products.

Third party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any drug that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Inadequate coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any drug for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidates that we develop.

Healthcare reform measures may have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes, as well as judicial challenges, regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post‑approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician‑administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

Further, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or, collectively, the PPACA, was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private payors in the United States. Some of the provisions of the PPACA have yet to be fully implemented, while certain provisions have been subject to judicial and Congressional challenges, as well as efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the PPACA. For

example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or Tax Act, includes a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax‑based shared responsibility payment imposed by the PPACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year, which is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” Additionally, on January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain PPACA‑mandated fees, including the so‑called “Cadillac” tax on certain high‑cost employer‑sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non‑exempt medical devices. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the PPACA, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” In July 2018, CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain PPACA‑qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the PPACA adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, or Texas District Court Judge, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the PPACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the PPACA are invalid as well. On December 18, 2019, a three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision on the appeal of that ruling, holding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and remanding the case to the Texas District Court Judge to consider certain questions. It is unclear how these decisions, subsequent decisions and appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the PPACA will impact the PPACA. Congress may consider additional legislation to repeal or repeal and replace other elements of the PPACA. We continue to evaluate the effect that the PPACA and its possible repeal and replacement may have on our business and the potential profitability of our product candidates.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA, which will remain in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Additional changes that may affect our business include the expansion of new programs such as Medicare payment for performance initiatives for physicians under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, which will be fully operational in 2019. At this time, it is unclear how the introduction of the Medicare quality payment program will impact overall physician reimbursement.

Further, in the United States there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. While some of the proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, the U.S. Congress and the Trump administration have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. On September 25, 2019, the Senate Finance Committee introduced the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019, a bill intended to reduce Medicare and Medicaid prescription drug prices, which would restructure the Medicare Part D benefit, modify payment methodologies for certain drugs and impose an inflation cap on drug price increases. An even more restrictive bill, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, was introduced in the House of Representatives on September 19, 2019, and would require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. It is unclear whether either of these bills will make it through both chambers and be signed into law, and, if either is enacted, what effect it would have on our business. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our current or any future product candidates or additional pricing pressures. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States or any other jurisdiction. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing or new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties

are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our current or any future product candidates we may develop may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved drug, which could have an adverse effect on demand for our product candidates if they are approved. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates. For additional information on healthcare reform, see “Business — Government Regulation and Product Approval.”

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We intend to rely on third parties to produce clinical and commercial supplies of our product candidates.

We do not own or operate facilities for drug manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing. We are dependent on third parties to manufacture the clinical supplies of our current and any future product candidates. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the cGMP requirements, for manufacture of both active drug substance and finished drug product. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, we will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for our product candidates. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We also intend to rely on third party manufacturers to supply us with sufficient quantities of our product candidates to be used, if approved, for commercialization. We do not yet have a commercial supply agreement for commercial quantities of drug substance or drug product. If we are not able to meet market demand for any approved product, it would negatively impact our ability to generate revenue, harm our reputation, and could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Further, our reliance on third party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured product candidates ourselves, including:

In addition, if we enter into a strategic collaboration with a third party for the commercialization of our current or any future product candidates, we will not be able to control the amount of time or resources that they devote to such efforts. If any strategic collaborator does not commit adequate resources to the marketing and distribution of our product candidates, it could limit our potential revenues.

Any of these events could lead to clinical trial delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval, or impact our ability to successfully commercialize our current or any future product candidates once approved. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including injunction, request for recall, seizure, or total or partial suspension of production.

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials and we and our third party manufacturers and suppliers must comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do, or interrupt our, business.

Our research and development activities and our third party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the generation, storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds and wastes. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are subject to environmental, health and safety laws and regulations governing, among other matters, the use, manufacture, generation, storage, handling, transportation, discharge and disposal of these hazardous materials and wastes and worker health and safety. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our and our manufacturers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury, which could result in an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, damages and significant cleanup costs and liabilities under applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. We also cannot guarantee that the safety procedures utilized by our third party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these

materials and wastes generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations. We may be held liable for any resulting damages, costs or liabilities, which could exceed our resources, and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. Failure to comply with these environmental, health and safety laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions. We do not currently carry environmental insurance coverage.

We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and if those third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, it may harm our business.

We do not currently have the ability to independently conduct any clinical trials. We intend to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and we expect to have limited influence over their actual performance. We rely upon CROs to monitor and manage data for our clinical programs, as well as the execution of future preclinical studies. We expect to control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We and our CROs are required to comply with the good laboratory practices, or GLPs, and GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in the form of International Conference on Harmonization guidelines for any of our product candidates that are in preclinical and clinical development. The regulatory authorities enforce GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. Although we rely on CROs to conduct GCP‑compliant clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations. If we or our CROs fail to comply with GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. Accordingly, if our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or fail to recruit a sufficient number of subjects, we may be required to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Our reliance on third parties to conduct clinical trials will result in less direct control over the management of data developed through clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Communicating with CROs and other third parties can be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Such parties may:

These factors may adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to conduct our clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for any other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize, any product candidate that we develop. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product candidate that we develop would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed. While we will have agreements governing their activities, our CROs will not be our employees, and we will not control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our future clinical and preclinical programs. These CROs may also have relationships with other

commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials, or other drug development activities which could harm our business. We face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or misappropriation of our intellectual property by CROs, which may reduce our trade secret protection and allow our potential competitors to access and exploit our proprietary technology.

If our relationship with any of these CROs terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs involves substantial cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can negatively impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. While we intend to carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a negative impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA. The FDA may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the trial. The FDA may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of our product candidates.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. If we breach our license agreements with Columbia University or any of the other agreements under which we acquired, or will acquire, the intellectual property rights to our product candidates, we could lose the ability to continue the development and commercialization of the related product.

The licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and to our current and future product candidates, and we expect to enter into additional such agreements in the future. In particular, our current product candidates AT‑001, AT‑003 and AT‑007 are dependent on our license agreement with The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, or Columbia University. Pursuant to that license agreement with Columbia University, or the 2016 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University granted us an exclusive license under two important patent families, and a nonexclusive license to certain know‑how, owned by Columbia University to develop, manufacture or commercialize certain compounds, including AT‑001, AT‑003 and AT‑007, for the diagnosis and treatment of human and animal diseases and conditions. The license grant is worldwide, with the exception of the patent family that covers AT‑001 and AT‑003. The license grant for the patent family that covers AT‑001 and AT‑003 excludes patent rights in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, which Columbia University has exclusively licensed to a third party. We cannot prevent Columbia University’s third party licensee from developing, manufacturing or commercializing certain compounds, including AT‑001 and AT‑003, but not including AT‑007, in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, and we cannot develop, manufacture or commercialize AT‑001 or AT‑003 in these territories, which could have a negative effect on our business. In addition, we entered into the 2019 Columbia Agreement, the 2019 Research Agreement and the PI3k Columbia Research Agreement, whereby, among other things, Columbia University granted to us an exclusive license under certain patents, and a non‑exclusive license to certain know‑how, in each case to develop, manufacture and commercialize certain PI3K inhibitor products, including AT‑104.

We do not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution and maintenance of patents and patent applications covering the technology that we license under either of the Columbia Agreements. Therefore, we cannot always be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted and maintained in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Although we have a right to have our comments considered in connection with the prosecution process, if Columbia University fails to prosecute and maintain such patents, or loses rights to those patents or patent applications as a result of its control of the prosecution activities, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, and our right to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected.

If we fail to meet our obligations under either Columbia Agreement in any material respect and fail to cure such breach in a timely fashion, then Columbia University may terminate such Columbia Agreement. If either Columbia Agreement is terminated, and we lose our intellectual property rights under such Columbia Agreement, this may result in complete termination of our product development and any commercialization efforts for the product candidates that are subject to such agreement, including AT‑001, AT‑003, AT‑007 and AT‑104. While we would expect to exercise all rights and remedies available to us, including seeking to cure any breach by us, and otherwise seek to preserve our rights under each Columbia Agreement, we may not be able to do so in a timely manner, at an acceptable cost or at all. For more information on the Columbia Agreement, see the section titled “Business — Exclusive License Agreement with Columbia University” and “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions — Columbia University License Agreements.”

Furthermore, license agreements we enter into in the future may not provide exclusive rights to use intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and products. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products in territories included in all of our licenses.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our product candidates and technology, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad or robust, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and technology may be adversely affected.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates and our technology. We and our licensors have sought, and intend to seek, to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates and our technology that are important to our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has, in recent years, been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or product candidates or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to file a patent application relating to any particular aspect of a product candidate. Furthermore, if third parties have filed such patent applications, an interference proceeding in the United States can be initiated by such third party, or by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, itself, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time‑consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

We or our licensors have not pursued or maintained, and may not pursue or maintain in the future, patent protection for our product candidates in every country or territory in which we may sell our products, if approved. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing our patents in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products that infringe our patents in and into the United States or other jurisdictions.

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if the patent applications we license or own do issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third

parties from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative products in a non‑infringing manner.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Furthermore, our owned and in‑licensed patents may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. For example, the research resulting in certain of our owned and in‑licensed patent rights and technology was funded in part by the U.S. government. As a result, the government may have certain rights, or march‑in rights, to such patent rights and technology. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a nonexclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention for noncommercial purposes. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march‑in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The government can exercise its march‑in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government‑funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the government of such rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent rights depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by government patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for noncompliance with these requirements.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In addition, periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and/or patent applications will have to be paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside the United States over the lifetime of our owned and licensed patents and/or applications and any patent rights we may own or license in the future. We rely on our service providers or our licensors to pay these fees. The USPTO and various non‑U.S. government patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and we are also dependent on our licensors to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, nonpayment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our products or technologies, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing products that are the same as or similar to our product candidates, which would have an adverse effect on our business. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance could harm our business.

In addition, if we fail to apply for applicable patent term extensions or adjustments, we will have a more limited time during which we can enforce our granted patent rights. In addition, if we are responsible for patent prosecution and maintenance of patent rights in‑licensed to us, any of the foregoing could expose us to liability to the applicable patent owner.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of product candidates such as AT‑001, AT‑003 and AT‑007, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms in the United States and, if available, in other countries where we have or will obtain patent rights. In the United States, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent; provided that the patent is not enforceable for more than 14 years from the date of drug approval, which is limited to the approved indication (or any additional indications approved during the period of extension). Furthermore, only one patent per approved product can be extended and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. If this occurs, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their drug earlier than might otherwise be the case.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a negative impact on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability and the ability of others with whom we may collaborate to develop, manufacture, market and sell our current and any future product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the proprietary rights and intellectual property of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and complex litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. We may in the future become party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current and any future product candidates and technology, including interference proceedings, post grant review and inter partes review before the USPTO. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce or to otherwise assert their patent rights against us. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could have a negative impact on our ability to commercialize our current and any future product candidates. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this is a high burden and requires us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. Moreover, given the vast number of patents in our field of technology, we cannot be certain that we do not infringe existing patents or that we will not infringe patents that may be granted in the future. Other companies and research institutions have filed, and may file in the future, patent applications related to AR inhibitors and their therapeutic use. Some of these patent applications have already been allowed or issued, and others may issue in the future. While we may decide to initiate proceedings to challenge the validity of these or other patents in the future, we may be unsuccessful, and courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad could uphold the validity of any such patent. Furthermore, because patent applications can take many years to issue and may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing, and because pending patent claims can be revised before issuance, there may be applications now pending which may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of our product candidates. Regardless of when filed, we may fail to identify relevant third party patents or patent applications, or we may incorrectly conclude that a third party patent is invalid or not infringed by our product candidates or activities. If a patent holder believes that our product candidate infringes its patent, the patent holder may sue us even if we have received patent protection for our technology. Moreover, we may face patent infringement claims from nonpracticing entities that have no relevant drug revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may thus have no deterrent effect. If a patent infringement suit were threatened or brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the drug or product candidate that is the subject of the actual or threatened suit.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s valid and enforceable intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and marketing our product candidate(s) and technology. Under any such license, we would most likely be required to pay various types of fees, milestones, royalties or other amounts. Moreover, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

The licensing or acquisition of third party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and more established companies may also pursue strategies to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and commercializing the infringing technology or product candidate. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. We may be required to indemnify collaborators or contractors against such claims. A finding of infringement could prevent us from manufacturing and commercializing our current or any future product candidates or force us to cease some or all of our business operations, which could harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation can be expensive and time‑consuming and would divert management’s attention from our core business. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims asserting that our employees, consultants or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know‑how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

In addition, we may in the future be subject to claims by our former employees or consultants asserting an ownership right in our patents or patent applications, as a result of the work they performed on our behalf. Although it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own, and we cannot be certain that our agreements with such parties will be upheld in the face of a potential challenge or that they will not be breached, for which we may not have an adequate remedy. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self‑executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be

forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time‑consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file legal claims, which can be expensive and time‑consuming and are likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our owned or licensed patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our owned or licensed patent applications at risk of not issuing. The initiation of a claim against a third party might also cause the third party to bring counterclaims against us, such as claims asserting that our patent rights are invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non‑enablement or lack of statutory subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant material information from the USPTO, or made a materially misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar validity claims before the USPTO in post‑grant proceedings such as ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review, post‑grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside the United States, in parallel with litigation or even outside the context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. We cannot be certain that there is or will be no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. For the patents and patent applications that we have licensed, we may have limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed patents against challenge by a third party. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any future patent protection on our current or future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could harm our business.

We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Our business could be harmed if in litigation the prevailing party does not offer us a license, or if the license offered as a result is not on commercially reasonable terms. Any litigation or other proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have an adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Changes in U.S. patent law or the patent law of other countries or jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our current and any future product candidates.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued

patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy‑Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO‑administered post‑grant proceedings, including post‑grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we own, have licensed or might obtain in the future. Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions, changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we own or have licensed or that we may obtain in the future.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world, which could negatively impact our business.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering our current and any future product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we or our licensors have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we may obtain patent protection but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents, and any future patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to

any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Since we rely on third parties to help us discover, develop and manufacture our current and any future product candidates, or if we collaborate with third parties for the development, manufacturing or commercialization of our current or any future product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We may also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development partnerships or similar agreements. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know‑how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical know‑how or other trade secrets by the parties to these agreements. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our confidential information or proprietary technology and processes. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. If any of the collaborators, scientific advisors, employees, contractors and consultants who are parties to these agreements breaches or violates the terms of any of these agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation, and we could lose our trade secrets as a result. Moreover, if confidential information that is licensed or disclosed to us by our partners, collaborators, or others is inadvertently disclosed or subject to a breach or violation, we may be exposed to liability to the owner of that confidential information. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally or unlawfully obtained and is using our trade secrets, like patent litigation, is expensive and time‑consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patent and trademark protection for our product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know‑how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our trade secrets, in part, by entering into nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees, advisors and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be effective. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time‑consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

Moreover, our competitors may independently develop knowledge, methods and know‑how equivalent to our trade secrets. Competitors could purchase our products and replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive

from our development efforts for technologies on which we do not have patent protection. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and other confidential information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and detecting the disclosure or misappropriation of confidential information and enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated confidential information is difficult, expensive and time‑consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Further, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our confidential information may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors, in which case we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us.

Any trademarks we may obtain may be infringed or successfully challenged, resulting in harm to our business.

We expect to rely on trademarks as one means to distinguish any of our product candidates that are approved for marketing from the products of our competitors. We have not yet selected trademarks for our product candidates and have not yet begun the process of applying to register trademarks for our current or any future product candidates. Once we select trademarks and apply to register them, our trademark applications may not be approved. Third parties may oppose our trademark applications or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our products, which could result in loss of brand recognition and could require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new brands. Our competitors may infringe our trademarks, and we may not have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks.

In addition, any proprietary name we propose to use with our current or any other product candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of the potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable proprietary product name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our business.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business. The following examples are illustrative:

Risks Related to Our Business Operations, Employee Matters and Managing Growth

We are highly dependent on the services of our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Dr. Shoshana Shendelman, and our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Riccardo Perfetti, and if we are not able to retain these members of our management team or recruit and retain additional management, clinical and scientific personnel, our business will be harmed.

We are highly dependent on our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Dr. Shoshana Shendelman, and our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Riccardo Perfetti. Each of them may currently terminate their employment with us at any time. The loss of the services of either of these persons could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Recruiting and retaining other senior executives, qualified scientific and clinical personnel and, if we progress the development of any of our product candidates, commercialization, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel, will be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize our product candidates. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high‑quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

Our future performance will also depend, in part, on our ability to successfully integrate newly hired executive officers into our management team and our ability to develop an effective working relationship among senior management. Our failure to integrate these individuals and create effective working relationships among them and other members of management could result in inefficiencies in the development and commercialization of our product candidates, harming future regulatory approvals, sales of our product candidates and our results of operations. Additionally, we do not currently maintain “key person” life insurance on the lives of our executives or any of our employees.

We expect to expand our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2019, we had 11 full‑time employees. As the clinical development of our product candidates progresses, we also expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of research, drug development, regulatory affairs and, if any of our product

candidates receives marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities, and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our collaborators or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a significant disruption of our product development programs and our ability to operate our business effectively, and adversely affect our business and operating results.

Our internal computer systems, cloud‑based computing services and those of our current and any future collaborators and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to damage or interruption from computer viruses, data corruption, cyber‑based attacks, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any significant system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Furthermore, federal, state and international laws and regulations, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which took effect in May 2018, can expose us to enforcement actions and investigations by regulatory authorities, and potentially result in regulatory penalties and significant legal liability, if our information technology security efforts fail. In addition, our software systems include cloud‑based applications that are hosted by third party service providers with security and information technology systems subject to similar risks. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, our competitive position could be harmed and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or the regulations applicable in other jurisdictions, provide accurate information to the FDA and other regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self‑dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs, and other business arrangements. Such misconduct also could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or interactions with the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from government investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could result in significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participating in government‑funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of noncompliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Any future acquisitions or strategic collaborations may increase our capital requirements, dilute our stockholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities and/or subject us to other risks.

From time to time, we may evaluate various acquisitions and strategic collaborations, including licensing or acquiring complementary drugs, intellectual property rights, technologies or businesses, as deemed appropriate to carry out our business plan. Any potential acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks, including:

In addition, if we engage in future acquisitions or strategic partnerships, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one‑time expenses, and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense. Moreover, we may not be able to locate suitable acquisition opportunities, and this inability could impair our ability to grow or obtain access to technology or drugs that may be important to the development of our business.

Our business may be adversely affected by the recent coronavirus outbreak.

In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus, referred to as 2019-ncov, Covid-19 coronavirus epidemic, or Covid-19, was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. Covid-19 has since spread to other regions in China and other countries, including jurisdictions, such as the EU, in which we have partnered with CROs to conduct clinical studies. There is a possibility that such CROs may become unavailable or that the clinical trials they manage may be delayed due to Covid-19 or containment efforts associated with it. Such events may lead to termination of our relationship with affected CROs, effecting the development and study of our product candidates.

 

More recently, Covid-19 has spread to the United States where we have our executive offices and principal operations. Infections and deaths related to Covid-19 may disrupt the United States’ healthcare and healthcare regulatory systems. Such disruptions could divert healthcare resources away from, or materially delay FDA approval with respect to, our clinical trials. It is unknown how long these disruptions could continue, were they to occur. In addition, other known and unknown factors caused by Covid-19 could materially delay our clinical trials, including our ability to recruit and retain patients and principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to Covid-19 if an outbreak occurs in their geography. Any elongation or de-prioritization of our clinical trials or delay in regulatory review resulting from such disruptions could materially affect the development and study of our product candidates.

 

In addition, we have in the past and may in the future source equipment and materials from China and other countries affected by Covid-19. If we were to engage with third party manufacturers in such countries in the future, there would be an increased risk of supply interruption, resulting in business/operational disruption.

Covid-19’s spread, which has caused a broad impact globally, such as restrictions on travel and quarantine policies put into place by businesses and governments, may materially affect us economically. While the potential economic impact brought by and the duration of Covid-19 may be difficult to assess or predict, a widespread pandemic could result in significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the spread of Covid-19 could materially affect our business and the value of our common stock.

 

While it is too early to tell whether Covid-19 will have a material effect on our business over time, we continue to monitor the situation as it unfolds. The extent to which Covid-19 impacts our results will depend on many factors and future developments, including new information about Covid-19 and any new government regulations which may emerge to contain the virus, among others.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for purchasers of our common stock.

The market price of our common stock is likely to be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical companies in particular, has experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, you may not be able to sell your common stock at or above the offering price. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the market price for our common stock may be influenced by the following:

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our common stock to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent investors from selling their shares at or above the price paid for the shares and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of our common stock.

Some companies that have experienced volatility in the trading price of their shares have been the subject of securities class action litigation. Any lawsuit to which we are a party, with or without merit, may result in an unfavorable judgment. We also may decide to settle lawsuits on unfavorable terms. Any such negative outcome could result in payments of substantial damages or fines, damage to our reputation or adverse changes to our business practices. Defending against litigation is costly and time‑consuming, and could divert our management’s attention and our resources. Furthermore, during the course of litigation, there could be negative public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, which could have a negative effect on the market price of our common stock.

Concentration of ownership of our common stock among our existing executive officers, directors and principal stockholders may prevent new investors from influencing significant corporate decisions.

Based upon shares of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2019, our executive officers, directors and stockholders who owned more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, in the aggregate, beneficially own shares representing approximately 47% of our outstanding common stock. If our executive officers, directors and stockholders who owned more than 5% of our outstanding common stock acted together, they may be able to significantly influence all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election and removal of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. The concentration of voting power and transfer restrictions could delay or prevent an acquisition of our company on terms that other stockholders may desire or result in the management of our company in ways with which other stockholders disagree.

If research analysts do not publish research or reports, or publish unfavorable research or reports, about us, our business or our market, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us or our business. Equity research analysts may discontinue research coverage of our common stock, and such lack of research coverage may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. We do not have any control over the analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. The price of our shares could decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrade our shares or issue other unfavorable commentary or research about us. If one or more equity research analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our shares could decrease, which in turn could cause the trading price or trading volume of our common stock to decline.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be your sole source of gain.

You should not rely on an investment in our common stock to provide dividend income. We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future. Investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.

We have broad discretion in the use of our cash and cash equivalents and may use them ineffectively, in ways with which you do not agree or in ways that do not increase the value of your investment.

Our management will have broad discretion in the application of our cash and cash equivalents and could spend the proceeds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our common stock. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in additional operating losses that could have a negative impact on our business, cause the price of our common stock to decline and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest our cash and cash equivalents in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

Future sales of common stock by holders of our common stock, or the perception that such sales may occur, could depress the market price of our common stock.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time, subject to certain restrictions described below. These sales, or the perception in the market that holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. As of December 31, 2019, we had outstanding 18,531,560 shares of common stock. A substantial number of such shares are currently restricted as a result of securities laws or lock‑up agreements but will be able to be sold in the future.

We further have registered all shares of common stock that we may issue in the future or have issued to date under our equity compensation plans. These shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates and certain lock‑up agreements. Sales of a large number of the shares issued under these plans in the public market could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” or EGC, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of some of the exemptions from reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not EGCs, including:

We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive because we will rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our share price may be more volatile. We currently take advantage of some or all of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an EGC. We will remain an EGC until the earlier of (i) December 31, 2024, (ii) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, (iii) the last day of the first fiscal year in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non‑affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30th, and (iv) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non‑convertible debt during the prior three‑year period.

In addition, under Section 107(b) of the JOBS Act, EGCs can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will be subject to the same requirements to adopt new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not EGCs.

We have incurred increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an EGC, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. In addition, the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act, and rules subsequently implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC have imposed various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to comply with these requirements. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time‑consuming and costly. For example, these rules and regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act, or Section 404, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. However, while we remain an EGC, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our corporate charter and our bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. These provisions also could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these

provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or DGCL, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. These provisions could discourage potential acquisition proposals and could delay or prevent a change in control transaction. They could also have the effect of discouraging others from making tender offers for our common stock, including transactions that may be in your best interests. These provisions may also prevent changes in our management or limit the price that investors are willing to pay for our stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that, with respect to any state actions or proceedings under Delaware statutory or common law, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for:

These exclusive‑forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. If a court were to find an exclusive‑forum provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business.

ITEM 1B.         UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS.

None.

ITEM 2.         PROPERTIES.

Our corporate headquarters are located at 545 Fifth Ave, Suite 1400, New York, NY 10017 where we lease office space pursuant to a lease agreement that commenced on October 31, 2019 and expires on October 31, 2024. We believe that our existing facilities are suitable and adequate to meet our current needs. We intend to add new facilities or expand existing facilities as we add employees, and we believe that suitable additional or substitute space will be available as needed to accommodate any such expansion of our operations.

ITEM 3.         LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

We are not a party to any legal proceedings, and we are not aware of any claims or actions pending or threatened against us. In the future, we might from time to time become involved in litigation relating to claims arising from our ordinary course of business, the resolution of which we do not anticipate would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

ITEM 4.         MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES.

Not applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5.         MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES.

Market Information

On  May 16, 2019, our common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “APLT.” Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common stock.

Stockholders

As of December 31, 2019, there were 125 stockholders of record of our common stock. The actual number of holders of our common stock is greater than this number of record holders, and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street names by brokers or held by other nominees. This number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We have never paid or declared any cash dividends on our common stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We intend to retain all available funds and any future

earnings to fund the development and expansion of our business. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon a number of factors, including our results of operations, financial condition, future prospects, contractual restrictions, restrictions imposed by applicable law and other factors that our board of directors deems relevant.

Equity Compensation Plans

The information required by Item 5 of Form 10-K regarding equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to Item 11 of Part III of this Annual Report.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

 

The following list sets forth information as to all securities we have sold between December 31, 2016 and

December 31, 2019:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The offers, sales and issuances of the securities described in paragraph (1) were deemed to be exempt from registration under the Securities Act in reliance on Rule 701 in that the transactions were under compensatory benefit plans and contracts relating to compensation as provided under Rule 701. The recipients of such securities were employees, directors or bona fide consultants of the Registrant and received the securities under the 2016 Plan. Appropriate legends were affixed to the securities issued in these transactions. Each of the recipients of securities in these transactions had adequate access, through employment, business or other relationships, to information about the Registrant.

 

The offers, sales and issuances of the securities described in paragraphs (2) through (10) above were deemed to be exempt from registration under the Securities Act in reliance on Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Rule 506 promulgated under Regulation D as transactions by an issuer not involving a public offering. The recipients of securities in each of these transactions acquired the securities for investment only and not with a view to or for sale in connection with any distribution thereof and appropriate legends were affixed to the securities issued in these transactions. Each of the recipients of securities in these transactions was an accredited investor within the meaning of Rule 501 of Regulation D under the Securities Act and had adequate access, through employment, business or other relationships, to information about the Registrant. No underwriters were involved in these transactions.

 

Use of Proceeds from Registered Offerings

 

On May 16, 2019, we completed our initial public offering, or IPO, of our common stock pursuant to which we issued and sold 4,000,000 shares of our common stock at a public offering price of $10.00 per share. All of our common stock issued and sold in the IPO were registered under the Securities Act pursuant to the registration statement on Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-230838), which was declared effective by the SEC on May 16, 2018. We received net proceeds of $34.6 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering costs. The shares began trading on The Nasdaq Global Market on May 14, 2019. Upon completion of the IPO, all of our outstanding shares of convertible preferred stock converted into 7,538,671 shares of our common stock.

 

As of December 31, 2019, we have used $26.7 million of the net offering proceeds primarily to advance our product candidates through clinical trial programs and for working capital and general corporate purposes.

 

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

We did not purchase any of our registered equity securities during the period covered by this Annual Report.

ITEM 6.         SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.

The following tables set forth our selected statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2019 2018, and 2017 and our selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, all of which have been derived from our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for any period in the future. You should read the following selected financial data together with the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report. The

selected financial data included in this section are not intended to replace the financial statements and are qualified in their entirety by the financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

 

 

ITEM 7.         MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and related financing, includes forward‑looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by these forward‑looking statements.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing a pipeline of novel product candidates against validated molecular targets in indications of high unmet medical need. We focus on molecules and pathways whose role in the disease process is well known based on prior research, but have previously failed to yield successful products due