10-K – 2026-02-24 – bbio-20251231.htm

Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and PRVs
Under the FDCA, as amended, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs and biologics that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the United States a drug for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the United States of such drug. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug or biologic application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug product, referred to as a PRV. A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its NDA or BLA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its NDA or BLA. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times.
On February 3, 2026, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, which reauthorized the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program through September 30, 2029.
Expedited Development and Review Programs
A sponsor may seek to develop and obtain approval of its product candidates under programs designed to accelerate the development, FDA review and approval of new drugs and biologics that meet certain criteria. For example, the FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biologics that are intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. For a fast track-designated product, the FDA may consider sections of the NDA or BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for fast track status any time before receiving NDA or BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-NDA or pre-BLA meeting.
A product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development or review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Priority review means that, for a new molecular entity or original BLA, the FDA sets a target date for FDA action on the marketing application at six months after accepting the application for filing as opposed to ten months. A product is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biologic designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. If criteria are not met for priority review, the application for a new molecular entity or original BLA is subject to the standard FDA review period of ten months after FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.
Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), a platform technology incorporated within or utilized by a drug or biologic is eligible for designation as a designated platform technology if (1) the platform technology is incorporated in, or utilized by, a drug approved under an NDA or BLA; (2) preliminary evidence submitted by the sponsor of the approved or licensed drug, or a sponsor that has been granted a right of reference to data submitted in the application for such drug, demonstrates that the platform technology has the potential to be incorporated in, or utilized by, more than one drug without an adverse effect on quality, manufacturing, or safety; and (3) data or information submitted by the applicable person indicates that incorporation or utilization of the platform technology has a reasonable likelihood to bring significant efficiencies to the drug development or manufacturing process and to the review process. A sponsor may request the FDA to designate a platform technology as a designated platform technology concurrently with, or at any time after, submission of an IND application for a drug that incorporates or utilizes the platform technology that is the subject of the request. If so designated, the FDA may expedite the development and review of any subsequent original NDA or BLA for a drug that uses or incorporates the platform technology. Designated platform technology status does not ensure that a drug will be developed more quickly or receive a faster FDA review process or ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may revoke a designation if the FDA determines that a designated platform technology no longer meets the criteria for such designation.
34

Table of Contents

A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies upon a determination that the product has an effect on either a surrogate that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the disease or condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing confirmatory clinical trials with due diligence and, under FDORA, the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that such confirmatory studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after accelerated approval is granted. In addition, the FDA currently requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product.
Additionally, a drug or biologic may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If the FDA designates a breakthrough therapy, it may take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application, which may include holding meetings with the sponsor and the review team throughout the development of the therapy; providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development of the drug to ensure that the development program to gather the nonclinical and clinical data necessary for approval is as efficient as practicable; involving senior managers and experienced review staff, as appropriate, in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary review; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor; and considering alternative clinical trial designs when scientifically appropriate, which may result in smaller trials or more efficient trials that require less time to complete and may minimize the number of patients exposed to a potentially less efficacious treatment. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of fast track designation, which means that the sponsor may file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis if certain conditions are satisfied, including an agreement with the FDA on the proposed schedule for submission of portions of the application and the payment of applicable user fees before the FDA may initiate a review.
As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress amended the FDCA to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies (“RMATs”), which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. RMATs do not include those human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products regulated solely under section 361 of the PHSA and 21 CFR Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and qualify for RMAT designation. A sponsor may request that the FDA designate a product candidate as a RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. The FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the product candidate meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a product candidate that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A product candidate with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval.
Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval, breakthrough therapy, and RMAT designation do not change the standards for approval.
35

Table of Contents

Pediatric Information and Pediatric Exclusivity
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), certain NDAs and BLAs and certain supplements to an NDA or BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy 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 grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (“FDASIA”), amended the FDCA to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration, unless the drug is for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted and is not for a molecularly targeted cancer indication, submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”) within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.
A drug or biologic product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods for all formulations, dosage forms, and indications of the active moiety and, for drugs, patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection and, for drugs, patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study provided that at the time pediatric exclusivity is granted there is not less than nine months of term remaining.
Post-Marketing Requirements
Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences to applicable regulatory authorities, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among other things, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, requirements for promotional activities on the internet, restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved label (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatment, but the FDA regulations do impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication, and may be required to be reviewed in advance in certain circumstances such as for products that receive accelerated approval.
Further, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA/BLA or NDA/BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials. Such regulatory reviews can result in denial or modification of the planned changes, or requirements to conduct additional tests or evaluations that can substantially delay or increase the cost of the planned changes.
The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory requirements, if problems occur following initial marketing or if the FDA determines that the product is no longer safe or effective.
36

Table of Contents

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of any approved products in accordance with cGMP regulations. NDA and BLA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP regulations, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA or BLA, including recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.
Any distribution of prescription drugs and biologics and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”) and the PHSA. In addition, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, was enacted in 2013 with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs and biologics distributed in the United States. The stabilization period has ended for trading partners to build and validate interoperable systems and processes to meet certain requirements of the DSCSA. Currently, trading partners without validated interoperable tracing systems must obtain an exemption from FDA. The DSCSA’s requirements also include the quarantine and prompt investigation of a suspect product, to determine if it is illegitimate, notifying trading partners and the FDA of any illegitimate product, and compliance with product tracking and tracing requirements.
Once an approval is granted, the FDA may issue enforcement letters or withdraw the approval of the product if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the drug or biologic reaches the market. Corrective action could delay drug or biologic distribution and require significant time and financial expenditures. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug or biologic, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may require revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, including the addition of new warning and contraindications; 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:
• mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors;
• restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the drug or biologic, suspension of the approval, complete withdrawal of the drug from the market or product recalls;
• fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;
• refusal of the FDA to approve applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of drug or biologic approvals;
• drug or biologic seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of drugs; or
• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced, passed in Congress and signed into law that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing, and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations, guidance, and policies are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect the manner in which pharmaceutical products are regulated and marketed.
37

Table of Contents

Regulation of Companion Diagnostics
We believe that the success of certain of our product candidates may depend, in part, on the development and commercialization of a companion diagnostic. Companion diagnostics identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercialization. The primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification, also called 510(k) clearance, approval of a premarket approval (“PMA”) application, or grant of a de novo request for classification.
To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or to a preamendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a predicate device, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA application. In making a determination that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the FDA compares the proposed device to the predicate device or predicate devices and assesses whether the subject device is comparable to the predicate device or predicate devices with respect to intended use, technology, design and other features which could affect safety and effectiveness. If the FDA determines that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device or predicate devices, the subject device may be cleared for marketing. The 510(k) premarket notification pathway generally takes from three to twelve months from the date the application is completed, but can take significantly longer.
PMA applications must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA application typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA application, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the Quality Management System Regulation, or QMSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. The FDA’s review of an initial PMA application is required by statute to take between six to ten months, although the process typically takes longer, and may require several years to complete. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA application. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA application or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny the approval of the PMA application or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA application approvable. Once granted, PMA application approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post-approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.
On July 31, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance document, for novel therapeutic products that depend on the use of a diagnostic test and where the diagnostic device could be essential for the safe and effective use of the corresponding therapeutic product, the premarket application for the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic, although the FDA recognizes that there may be cases when contemporaneous development may not be possible. However, in cases where a drug cannot be used safely or effectively without the companion diagnostic, the FDA’s guidance indicates it will generally not approve the drug without the approval or clearance of the diagnostic device. The FDA also issued a draft guidance in July 2016 setting forth the principles for co-development of an in vitro companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product. The draft guidance describes principles to guide the development and contemporaneous marketing authorization for the therapeutic product and its corresponding in vitro companion diagnostic.
To date, the FDA has required premarket approval for nearly all companion diagnostics for cancer therapies. In January 2024, the FDA announced its intention to initiate the reclassification process for most in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics. Further, the FDA indicated that in addition to the reclassification process, the FDA will continue taking a risk-based approach in the initial classification of individual in vitro diagnostics to determine whether a new test may be classified into class II through the de novo classification process. In so doing, the FDA indicated that it may regulate most future companion diagnostics as class II devices.
38

Table of Contents

Once cleared or approved, the companion diagnostic device must adhere to post-marketing requirements including the requirements of FDA’s quality system regulation, adverse event reporting, recalls and corrections along with product marketing requirements and limitations. Like drug and biologic makers, companion diagnostic makers are subject to unannounced FDA inspections at any time during which the FDA will conduct an audit of the product(s) and the Company’s facilities for compliance with its authorities.
Biosimilars and Exclusivity
Certain of our product candidates are regulated as biologics. An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCI Act”), as part of the ACA. This amendment to the PHSA, in part, attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products as compared to small molecule drugs, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.
A reference biological product is granted four and twelve year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. The FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and the FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until twelve years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the other company’s product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA.
Other Regulatory Matters
Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) including the Office of Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights, other divisions of the Department of HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.
Healthcare providers, physicians, and third party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers and physicians and any future arrangements with third party payers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
39

Table of Contents

The Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. Moreover, the ACA provides that 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 federal civil money penalties.
Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (the “Sunshine Act”), within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) report annually to CMS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians, certain other licensed health care practitioners and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, physicians, certain other healthcare professionals, and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians, certain other healthcare professionals, and their immediate family members.
We may also be subject to federal price reporting laws, which require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products. Further, we may face obligations under federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.
Similar federal, state and foreign fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services. Such laws are generally broad and are enforced by various state agencies and private actions. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require us to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws and regulations described above, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant federal government compliance guidance, and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state and require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State and foreign laws, including, for example, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, which became effective May 2018 also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties. Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. We must also comply with federal government price reporting laws, which require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.
40

Table of Contents

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. 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, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, individual imprisonment, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly and time consuming, and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a Company’s attention from the business.
In the United States, to help patients afford our approved product, we may utilize programs to assist them, including patient assistance programs and co-pay coupon programs for eligible patients. PAPs are regulated by and subject to guidance from CMS OIG. In addition, at least one insurer has directed its network pharmacies to no longer accept co-pay coupons for certain specialty drugs the insurer identified. Our co-pay coupon programs could become the target of similar insurer actions. In addition, in November 2013, the CMS issued guidance to the issuers of qualified health plans sold through the ACA’s marketplaces encouraging such plans to reject patient cost-sharing support from third parties and indicating that the CMS intends to monitor the provision of such support and may take regulatory action to limit it in the future. The CMS subsequently issued a rule requiring individual market qualified health plans to accept third-party premium and cost-sharing payments from certain government-related entities. In September 2014, the OIG of the HHS issued a Special Advisory Bulletin warning manufacturers that they may be subject to sanctions under the federal anti-kickback statute and/or civil monetary penalty laws if they do not take appropriate steps to exclude Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons. Accordingly, companies exclude these Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons.
Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, drug manufacturers can be held liable under federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, such as the federal civil False Claims Act, which imposes criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities (including manufacturers) for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Penalties for a False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. The government may deem manufacturers to have “caused” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. Claims which include items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are false or fraudulent claims for purposes of the False Claims Act. The federal False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery. Our future marketing and activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, if approved, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our products, if approved, and the sale and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law.
HIPAA created federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.
41

Table of Contents

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.
U.S. Data Collection
We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations 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 of 2009 (“HITECH”) and their implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, which imposes requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective business associates, independent contractors, or agents of health covered entities, that perform services for them that involve the creation, maintenance, receipt, use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individual 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 health care providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, there may be additional federal, state, and non-U.S. laws which govern the privacy and security of health and other personal information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and criminal penalties.
States are also active in creating specific rules relating to the processing of personal information. The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) imposes requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents, including to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them, and offering data subjects the right to request access, correction, deletion and limit the sale and sharing of such personal information. The CCPA may result in significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements, and includes a private right of action for certain data breaches.
Similar laws have been passed and proposed in numerous other states. Like the CCPA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data (which includes health data in some cases). The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in dozens of states around the country make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance.
Certain states have also specifically regulated consumer health information. For example, Washington’s My Health My Data Act, which went into effect on March 31, 2024, regulates the collection and sharing of consumer health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data. In addition, other states have proposed and/or passed legislation that regulates the privacy and/or security of certain specific types of information. For example, a small number of states have passed laws that regulate biometric data specifically. These various privacy and security laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.
All of these evolving compliance and operational requirements impose significant costs, such as costs related to organizational changes, implementing additional protection technologies, training employees and engaging consultants and legal advisors, which are likely to increase over time. Such requirements may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies, utilize management’s time and/or divert resources from other initiatives and projects. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with any applicable federal, state or foreign laws and regulations relating to data privacy and security could result in damage to our reputation, as well as proceedings or litigation by governmental agencies or other third parties, including class action privacy litigation in certain jurisdictions, which would subject us to significant fines, sanctions, awards, injunctions, penalties or judgments. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
42

Table of Contents

Regulators and legislators in the U.S. are increasingly scrutinizing and restricting certain personal data transfers and transactions involving foreign countries. For example, the Department of Justice’s January 8, 2025, Rule on Preventing Access to U.S. Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, prohibits transfers of data, including health data, genetic data, and biospecimens, to countries of concern, including China. The regulations also restrict certain investment agreements, employment agreements and vendor agreements involving such data and countries of concern, absent specified cybersecurity controls. Actual or alleged violations of these regulations may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, and may result in exclusion from participation in federal and state programs. and could restrict our ability to use certain vendors, sites, investigators, or service providers in global clinical trials.
Current and Future Legislation
In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare.
For example, in 2010, the ACA was enacted in the United States. The ACA includes measures that have significantly changed, and are expected to continue to significantly change, the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical industry are that the ACA:
• made several changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including increasing pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability by raising the minimum basic Medicaid rebate on most branded prescription drugs and adding a new rebate calculation for “line extensions” (i.e., new formulations, such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products.
• imposed a requirement on manufacturers of branded drugs to provide a 70% point-of-sale discount off the negotiated price of branded drugs dispensed to Medicare Part D beneficiaries in the coverage gap discount program as a condition for a manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D.
• extended a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations.
• expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Drug Discount Program.
• imposed an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs.
• established a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. The research conducted by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute may affect the market for certain pharmaceutical products. The ACA established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.
In addition, other legislative and regulatory changes have also been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted:
• On August 2, 2011, the U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031.
• On January 2, 2013, the U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.
• On April 13, 2017, CMS published a final rule that gives states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.
• On May 23, 2019, CMS published a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020.
43

Table of Contents

• On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. Due to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, estimated budget deficit increases resulting from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and subsequent legislation, Medicare payments to providers will be further reduced starting in 2025 absent further legislation. These laws and regulations may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.
• In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) was signed into law. The IRA includes several provisions that will impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries to $2,000 starting in 2025; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further under the IRA, and subsequent revisions under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program. Effective for the 2028 initial price applicability year, all orphan drugs, regardless of the number of orphan drug designations or indications, are exempt from the Medicare drug price negotiation program. The implementation of the IRA is currently subject to ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the IRA’s Medicare drug price negotiation program. Although the effects of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general are not yet known, we are taking into consideration the potential impact of the IRA on our development and commercialization activities.
Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. On April 15, 2025, the current administration published Executive Order 14273, “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which generally directs the federal government to take measures to reduce drug prices, including eliminating the so-called “pill penalty” under the IRA that creates a distinction between small molecule and large molecule products for purposes of determining when a drug may be eligible for drug price negotiation. On May 12, 2025, the current administration published Executive Order 14297, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” which generally, among other things, directs the federal government to establish and communicate most-favored-nation (“MFN”) price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations. Further, the Executive Order directs the federal government to support regulatory paths to allow direct-to-patient sales for companies that meet these targets. It also states that the Administration will take additional aggressive action (for example, examining whether marketing approvals should be modified or rescinded or opening the door for individual drug importation waivers) should manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the MFN lowest price. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to “take all necessary and appropriate action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in any act, policy, or practice that may be unreasonable or discriminatory or that may impair United States national security . . . including by suppressing the price of pharmaceutical products below fair market value in foreign countries.” Notably, a similar “Most-Favored-Nation” pricing rule enacted under the first Trump administration was subject to an injunction resulting from judicial challenges to the rule, which was formally rescinded by the former Biden Administration in August 2021.
On November 6, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) announced a new drug payment model designed to make MFN-level prices available to state Medicaid programs via manufacturer rebates. Referred to as the “GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid Model” (“GENEROUS”), the initiative is designed to run from 2026 through 2030 and is voluntary for both manufacturers and state Medicaid programs. Under the model, participating states will be able to access MFN-level prices for participating manufacturers’ drugs through CMS-negotiated supplemental rebates tied to an MFN net price benchmark.
44

Table of Contents

On December 19, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) proposed a mandatory Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) drug payment model to test whether alternative methods for calculating Medicare rebates, based on international pricing metrics rather than inflation-based metrics, reduce costs for Medicare fee-for-service (“FFS”) beneficiaries and the Medicare program while preserving quality of care. The Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (“GUARD”) Model, would test an alternative approach to calculating rebates for certain Medicare Part D products using international pricing benchmarks. The GUARD Model would begin on January 1, 2027, and run through December 31, 2033. Further, on December 19, 2025, CMS proposed the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing Model (“GLOBE”) for Medicare Part B, would require manufacturers of specified single source drugs and sole source biologics to pay incremental rebates based on international benchmark prices, with participation triggered for products meeting CMS’s spending and eligibility criteria. As proposed, GLOBE would begin a five-year performance period on October 1, 2026.
A number of these and other proposed measures may change or be repealed by the current administration and it is possible that new legislation may be introduced. 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 drugs and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or additional pricing pressures.
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 drugs and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or additional pricing pressures.
Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Certain states are also pursuing cost containment efforts through Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (“PDABs”) and similar entities. While many PDABs have been granted authority to promote drug price transparency and reporting, some states have granted PDABs more expansive authority, including to set Upper Payment Limits (UPLs) on select, high price drugs. The adoption and implementation of UPLs may put downward pressure on drug prices and impact our company’s future net product revenues. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
We cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future, especially given the recent change in administration. Further federal, state and foreign legislative and regulatory developments are likely, and we expect ongoing initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from product candidates and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.
Packaging and Distribution in the United States
If our approved products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.
The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.
The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.
45

Table of Contents

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our potential products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.
Other U.S. Environmental, Health and Safety Laws and Regulations
We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.
We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.
In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.
U.S. Patent Term Extension and Marketing Exclusivity
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of a drug or biologic, some U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits extension of a patent term of up to five years beyond the normal expiration date of the patent as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. Patent term extension, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension. An NDA or BLA applicant may apply for extension of patent term for its currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA or BLA.
Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another Company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
European Union Drug Development
In the European Union (“EU”), our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.
46

Table of Contents

Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls.
In April 2014, the EU adopted the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (“EU Clinical Trials Regulation”), which replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on January 31, 2022. The transitory provisions of the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation provided that, by January 31, 2025, all ongoing clinical trials must have transitioned to the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation.
The EU Clinical Trials Regulation overhauled the previous system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. Specifically, the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, which is directly applicable in all Member States (meaning no national implementing legislation in each EU Member State is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. For instance, it provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point (through the Clinical Trials Information Systems) and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications. Compliance with the more complex procedural requirements of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation could result in some delay in the initiation of clinical trials.
European Union Drug Review and Approval
In the EU, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization (“MA”). There are different routes to obtain an MA in the EU.
• The centralized MA is issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the EMA, and is valid throughout the entire territory of the EU, and in the additional countries of the European Economic Area (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, including medicines produced by biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products (gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.
• Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a product and for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of an MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, which makes the final decision to grant an MA, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, excluding clock stops, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.
47

Table of Contents

• National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EU and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EU, this national MA can be recognized in another Member State through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the Member States in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State (“RMS”). The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the product characteristics (“SmPC”), and a draft of the labeling and package leaflet, which are sent to the other Member States (referred to as the Concerned Member States) for their approval. If the Concerned Member States raise no objections, based on a potential serious risk to public health, to the assessment, SmPC, labeling, or packaging proposed by the RMS, the product is subsequently granted a national MA in all the Member States (i.e., in the RMS and the Concerned Member States).
Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EU make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.
European Union New Chemical Entity Exclusivity
In the EU, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete and independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU, during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be placed on the EU market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall 10-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies. There is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, however, another company could nevertheless also market another version of the product if such company obtained an MA based on an MAA with a complete and independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.
European Union Orphan Designation and Exclusivity
In the EU, the European Commission (upon recommendation of the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products) may grant an orphan designation in respect of a product if its sponsor can establish that: (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (i) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (ii) it is unlikely that the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (3) there must be no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or, if such a method exists, the product would be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.
48

Table of Contents

In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following grant of a marketing authorization. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission nor any of the competent authorities in the EU Members States can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product” for the same therapeutic indication. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. This period may be reduced to six years if the orphan designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Market exclusivity may also be revoked in very select cases, such as if (i) it is established that a similar medicinal product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the authorized product; (ii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized orphan product consents to such revocation; or (iii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized orphan product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing authorization. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. Furthermore, when applying for a marketing authorization for an orphan medicinal product, the applicant is required to submit a report justifying the maintenance of the orphan designation, which the EMA will assess in parallel with assessing the application for marketing authorization. There is a risk that any orphan designation granted for our products will not be maintained upon granting of a marketing authorization and that our products will therefore not receive the market exclusivity granted to orphan medicinal products.
European Pediatric Investigation Plan
In the EU, MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”) agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”) unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when this data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. If an MA is obtained and trial results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product may be eligible for a six month-extension of any existing supplementary protection certificate extension. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.
Regulatory Requirements After a Marketing Authorization has been Obtained
If authorization for a medicinal product in the EU is obtained, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion, and sale of medicinal products. These include:
• Compliance with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules must be ensured. These rules can impose post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations.
• The manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2017/1572, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice. These requirements include compliance with EU cGMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the EU with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the EU.
49

Table of Contents

• We are a party to and may from time to time enter into additional agreements with commercial partners to supply our partner with API and bulk or finished drug product for their commercial sales of our product in a licensed territory. In connection with this supply of product, we must comply with any applicable regulations for the purchase, distribution, storage, exporting and sale of API and medicinal products in the licensed territory. For example in June 2024, our wholly-owned subsidiary BridgeBio Europe B.V. (“BridgeBio BV”), which is domiciled in the Netherlands, entered into the Bayer Supply Agreement for which BridgeBio BV has agreed to manufacture and supply to Bayer our commercial product Beyonttra to sell in the EU. To support our obligations under the Bayer Supply Agreement, we have also entered into a commercial manufacturing agreement with a third-party CMO in Germany to manufacture and package the final drug product Beyonttra. We are required to obtain the necessary registration or authorization from the relevant EU authority in order to import the API into the EU, deliver it to our German CMO, and have the final drug product for Beyonttra supplied to Bayer, as well as to export drug product or finished product. Under applicable EU and Dutch regulations, this requires BridgeBio BV to obtain a registration for activities related to API (“API Registration”) and an authorization for wholesale distribution of medicinal products (“WDA”). In order to receive the API Registration and the WDA, we must pass an inspection.
• Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to induce or reward improper performance generally is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of the European Union Member States, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the UK. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the EU Directive governing medicinal products for human use, further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the UK despite its departure from the EU. Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.
The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) which consists of the EU Member States, plus Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland.
Reform of the Regulatory Framework in the EU
The European Commission introduced legislative proposals in April 2023 that, if implemented, will replace the current regulatory framework in the EU for all medicines (including those for rare diseases and for children). In April 2024, the European Parliament adopted its position on the legislative proposals and, in June 2025, the Council of the European Union adopted its position. A common position on the text has been agreed upon on December 11, 2025, in the context of subsequent inter-institutional trilogue negotiations. The proposed revisions remain to be adopted, and are not expected to become applicable before 2028.
Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom (UK)
Following the end of the Brexit transition period on January 1, 2021 and the implementation of the Windsor Framework on January 1, 2025, the UK is not generally subject to EU laws in respect of medicines. The EU and the UK have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement (a “TCA”), which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not provide for wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations.
50

Table of Contents

The EU laws that have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation remain applicable in the UK as “retained EU law.” However, new EU legislation, such as the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, is not applicable in the UK. Under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, the Secretary of State or an ‘appropriate authority’ have delegated powers to amend or supplement existing regulations in the area of medicinal products and medical devices. This allows new rules to be introduced in the future by way of secondary legislation, which aims to allow flexibility in addressing regulatory gaps and future changes in the fields of human medicines, clinical trials and medical devices. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is governed by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, as amended, which is derived from the Clinical Trials Directive, as implemented into UK national law through secondary legislation. In April 2025, the UK introduced the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations. These changes, which will take full effect from April 2026, aim to create a streamlined, risk-proportionate system that accelerates approvals while maintaining robust safety standards.
As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is the UK’s standalone medicines and medical devices regulator. As a result of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, different rules applied in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales, and Scotland (together, “Great Britain”), which continued to follow the EU regulatory regime. However, on January 1, 2025 a new arrangement called the “Windsor Framework” came into effect and reintegrated Northern Ireland under the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products. The Windsor Framework removes EU licensing processes and EU labeling and serialization requirements in relation to Northern Ireland and introduces a UK-wide licensing process for medicines. A single UK-wide marketing authorization may be granted by the MHRA for novel medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. In addition, the new arrangements require certain medicines supplied to Northern Ireland under a UK authorization to be labelled “UK only”, indicating they are not for sale in the EU.
The MHRA has also introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, including a 150-day assessment and a rolling review procedure. On January 1, 2024, a new international recognition framework was put in place, under which the MHRA may have regard to decisions on the approval of marketing authorizations made by the European Medicines Agency and certain other regulators (including the FDA) when determining an application for a UK authorization. The MHRA also has the power to have regard to marketing authorizations approved in EU Member States (or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) through decentralized or mutual recognition procedures when determining an application for a UK authorization.
EU and UK Data Collection
The collection and processing of personal data (including health data) in the European Economic Area (EEA) is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (“EU GDPR”). Similarly, the collection and use of personal data (including health data) in the UK is governed by the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the UK Data Protection Act 2018, collectively the UK GDPR, and together with the EU GDPR, “GDPR.” Currently, the EU GDPR and UK GDPR remain largely aligned. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA/UK and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. The GDPR imposes numerous stringent requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing of special categories of personal data (such as health and data), relying on a legal basis or condition for processing personal data, if required obtaining consent of data subjects, providing detailed information to data subjects about how personal data is used, conducting privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, implementing limitations on the retention of personal data, providing mandatory data breach notification, implementing “privacy by design” requirements, and taking certain measures when engaging service providers acting as data processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA/UK to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the United States in certain circumstances unless derogation exists or a valid GDPR transfer mechanism (for example, the European Commission approved Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), and the UK International Data Transfer Agreement/Addendum, or UK IDTA) have been put in place. Where relying on the SCCs /UK IDTA for data transfers, we may also be required to carry out transfer impact assessments to assess whether the recipient is subject to local laws which allow public authority access to personal data. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA Member States may result in fines up to €20 million (or £17.5 million in the UK) or 4% of a company’s global annual revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects and consumer associations the right to claim material and non-material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the European Union’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted.
51

Table of Contents

The UK Government has introduced a Data Protection and Digital Information Bill to reform the UK data protection legal framework which failed in the UK legislative process. A new Data (Use and Access) Bill (“UK Bill”) has been introduced into parliament. If passed, the final version of the UK Bill may have the effect of further altering the similarities between the UK and EEA data protection regime and threaten the UK Adequacy Decision from the European Commission. Further, this may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk.
Rest of the World Regulation
For other countries outside of the European Union and the United States, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.
If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.
Additional Laws and Regulations Governing International Operations
If we further expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.
Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.
Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.
The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.
52

Table of Contents

Coverage and Reimbursement
Successful commercialization of new drug products depends in part on the extent to which reimbursement for those drug products will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drug products they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford a drug product. Sales of drug products depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of drugs products are paid for by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors.
A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular drug products. In many countries, the prices of drug products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of drug products under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for drug products may be reduced compared with the United States.
There is also significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new drug products are typically made by CMS, an agency within the HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new drug product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:
• a covered benefit under its health plan;
• safe, effective and medically necessary;
• appropriate for the specific patient;
• cost-effective; and
• neither experimental nor investigational.
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. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug on their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or another alternative is available. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price (“ASP”) and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.
53

Table of Contents

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. While all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. Any negotiated prices for any of our future products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, 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 payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.
For a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. As of 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although under the current state of the law these newly eligible entities (with the exception of children’s hospitals) will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. As 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase.
These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, and may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. If third-party payors do not consider our drugs to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our drugs after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our drugs on a profitable basis.
Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products and medical devices is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some Member States provide that products may be marketed only after the proposed pricing has been approved. Some Member States may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. A Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Member States may allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.
Human Capital Management
Our human capital philosophy relies on attracting and retaining team members who consistently demonstrate top performance. Our culture and our approach to talent reinforces this philosophy, including recruiting, professional development, performance management and total rewards. We have provided below additional details on some of our core human resources processes.
As of December 31, 2025, we had 834 full-time employees and 5 part-time employees. Of these, 405 focus on driving forward research and development programs, 281 focus on our commercialization efforts, either directly or through our affiliates, and 153 work across our affiliates to provide strategic business development, finance and executive leadership expertise, as well as general and administrative services generally across our affiliates. We have never had a work stoppage, and none of our employees is represented by a labor organization or under any collective-bargaining arrangements. We consider our employee relations to be good.
54

Table of Contents

Recruiting
We have a dedicated talent acquisition capability to support our affiliates in hiring the right talent at the right time. Our team of experienced talent acquisition professionals works closely with hiring managers to understand the required skills and capabilities for an open role, and then supports the interview process and evaluation of candidates. We strive to hire top talent, and therefore need a high-quality recruiting process and candidate experience. We endeavor to fill every role with the most qualified candidate possible, which sometimes requires partnership with an external recruitment agency. We are consistently looking at new opportunities and avenues to recruit talented individuals to work at BridgeBio.
The talent acquisition team’s focus is to meet the hiring needs across BridgeBio and our affiliates. We recognize that our current and potential future team members have options for employment opportunities, including with other biotech and pharma companies, research and academic institutions, government entities, and consulting and investment firms. To attract and retain top performing team members, we focus on creating an environment that allows for autonomy, professional growth, and impact while also offering a competitive total rewards package.
Professional Development and Performance Management
We invest in the professional development of our team members through regular feedback and guidance, as well as targeted learning and development opportunities to meet demonstrated needs. We established a set of five core attributes that we expect every BridgeBio team member to demonstrate while performing in their roles: Patient Champion, Entrepreneurial Operator, Truth Seeker, Inspires Excellence and High-Quality Executor.
BridgeBio conducts semi-annual performance review processes for all team members to evaluate performance and provide feedback against these attributes. The feedback focuses on strengths and opportunities for improvement to enable the professional development of all team members. At the end of the year, the performance review includes self, peer, and manager feedback and also includes a formal rating and informs compensation decisions, including performance bonus, salary adjustments, and promotions.
Core Values and Ethics
Millions worldwide are afflicted with genetic diseases, but small patient populations and industry reluctance to conduct early-stage development means that for many, treatments have not been forthcoming. We are committed to bridging this gap: between business case and scientific possibility, between patient and hope. This starts with our first core value: to put patients first. We also strive to think independently. Our goal is to not simply accept the ideas and opinions of others as fact, but instead to ask “why?” and “why not?” We endeavor to bring a rigorous, first-principles mindset to each problem that we take on. We encourage all our team members to speak up when they have an idea or feedback to share, taking pride in a culture that is radically transparent when it comes to debating ideas. A commitment to independent thinking requires us to consider the ideas of others and to adopt them if they prove best. We strive to maintain a culture where any idea is worthy of both consideration and testing. We know that every minute counts. Our decentralized model strives to deliver treatments from discovery to patients as fast as humanly possible by utilizing focused teams of experts for each asset. Big decisions can be taken by people best-equipped to understand them, without wasting time on unnecessary cycles. And we let Science speak. Our model was designed to promote the rational assessment of our programs. Decisions about a program’s fate are driven by its performance against a set of objective criteria, giving each potential medicine’s scientific merits the last word. All employees are responsible for upholding these values and the BridgeBio Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which forms the foundation of our policies and practices.
Total Rewards
To attract and retain top talent, we offer a competitive total rewards package. We target total direct compensation at the upper end of market. We link a portion of every employee’s compensation to performance through a performance bonus program. To create a sense of ownership and align employee incentives with our long-term success, we offer eligible employees equity ownership in the company through stock option or restricted stock unit grants and our employee stock purchase plan. We also designed a program to incentivize affiliate-level employees to achieve specific milestones at core value-inflection points, such as IND or NDA approval.
We focus our benefits offering on areas critical to keeping our employees and their immediate families healthy and productive. We offer physical and mental health benefits to all employees who work at least 30 hours per week, on average. We have a flexible paid time off policy to empower team members to take the time they need, when they need it.
55

Table of Contents

Community
We believe that building a strong sense of community at BridgeBio is critical to our success. Team members can only live up to our values of thinking independently, letting science speak, and being radically transparent when they feel a sense of belonging. This is also important to our ability to bring together team members from diverse backgrounds and experiences. We are proud to promote unique voices within and outside our organization, and are eager to learn from others’ experiences.
To build community, we make targeted investments at the BridgeBio level. We offer a robust onboarding program for each new hire to ensure they understand the BridgeBio history and culture and are set up for success in their roles. We work closely with people managers to ensure they understand the expectations for the critical role of leading teams. Understanding that communications is essential for a community to thrive, we have regular Town Halls to update the organization on important progress across our scientific and clinical programs. In addition to these large gatherings, we have implemented a number of communications tools to help employees stay informed and connected. Finally, our community is anchored by our commitment to patients, underscored by our commitment to bring the entire company together multiple times a year for Patient Days. On these impactful days, we hear stories from the people who are living with rare genetic diseases, their caregivers and advocates.
Corporate and Other Information
We were incorporated as a Delaware corporation in 2019 under the name BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 250, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Our telephone number is (650) 391-9740.
Our web page address is https://bridgebio.com . Our investor relations website is located at https://investor.bridgebio.com . We make available free of charge on our investor relations website under “SEC Filings” our Annual Reports on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K, including exhibits, our directors’ and officers’ Section 16 Reports and any amendments to those reports after filing or furnishing such materials to the SEC. References to our website address do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document or any other document that we file with or furnish to the SEC.
56

Table of Contents

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
Our business involves significant risks, some of which are described below. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and the related notes. If any of the following risks actually occur, it could harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition and future prospects. In such event, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report.
Risks Related to Commercialization
Our business is substantially dependent on the commercial success of Attruby and Beyonttra. The continued commercial success of this product, along with our product candidates, if approved, will depend upon the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community.
Our business depends heavily on our ability to successfully commercialize Attruby and Beyonttra. The commercial success of Attruby and Beyonttra or our product candidates, if approved, will depend upon their degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community. Our product candidates, if approved, may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of Attruby and Beyonttra or any other of our product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:
• the efficacy and safety of such product candidates as demonstrated in pivotal clinical trials and published in peer-reviewed journals;
• the potential and perceived advantages compared to alternative treatments, including any similar generic treatments;
• the ability to offer these products for sale at competitive prices;
• the ability to offer appropriate patient access programs, such as co-pay assistance;
• convenience and ease of dosing and administration compared to alternative treatments;
• the clinical indications for which the product candidate is approved by the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities;
• product labeling or product insert requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including any limitations, contraindications or warnings contained in a product’s approved labeling;
• restrictions on how the product is distributed;
• the timing of market introduction of competitive products, including generics of competing products;
• publicity concerning these products or competing products and treatments;
• the strength of marketing and distribution support;
• favorable third-party coverage and sufficient reimbursement or other assistance for patients who are uninsured or underinsured; and
• the prevalence and severity of any side effects or AEs.
Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians’ organizations, hospitals, other healthcare providers, government agencies or private insurers will determine that our products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective as compared with competing treatments. If any product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue, and we may not become profitable.
57

Table of Contents

If our sales and marketing capabilities for Attruby and Beyonttra, and our future product candidates, if approved, are not effective or we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into and maintain our agreements with third parties to sell and market Attruby and Beyonttra or any future product candidates approved for commercial sale, we may be unsuccessful in our commercial efforts.
To achieve and maintain commercial success for Attruby and Beyonttra and any other approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must continue to develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to grow our focused sales, marketing, and commercial support infrastructure to market and sell our product candidates, if and when they are approved. We may also elect to enter into collaborations or strategic partnerships with third parties to engage in commercialization activities with respect to selected product candidates, indications or geographic territories, including territories outside the United States, as we have done with Bayer and Alexion in the case of Beyonttra, although there is no guarantee we will be able to enter into similar arrangements in the future even if the intent is to do so.
There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition commercialization personnel. We may also fail to obtain or maintain the necessary regulatory approvals, distribution licenses or other registrations that are required to ship an approved product to a customer or commercial partner, or our contract manufacturers may fail to supply us or our commercial partners with our required or forecasted amounts of finished product, active pharmaceutical ingredients or raw materials to meet commercial demand on a timely basis, or at all.
Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize any approved product on our own include:
• the inability to recruit and retain adequate numbers of effective sales, marketing, reimbursement, customer service, medical affairs, and other support personnel;
• the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any future approved products;
• the inability of reimbursement professionals to negotiate arrangements for formulary access, reimbursement, and other acceptance by payors;
• the inability to price products at a sufficient price point to ensure an adequate and attractive level of profitability;
• manufacturing, supply chain or distribution disruptions that delay or prevent the launch and continued commercialization of any approved products by us or a commercial partner;
• the failure to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals, state licenses, wholesale distribution licenses or other registrations that are required to ship an approved product to a customer or commercial partner;
• the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and
• unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent commercialization organization.
58

Table of Contents

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support, and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products we may develop internally. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize, if approved, our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us or them. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively or may expose us to legal and regulatory risk by not adhering to regulatory requirements and restrictions governing the sale and promotion of prescription drug products, including those restricting off-label promotion. Even if we enter into a commercial partnership with a third party, we may have manufacturing, supply chain or distribution disruptions that delay or prevent the commercial launch of an approved product by our partner. There is also a risk that one of our commercial partners decides to terminate our agreement due to a change in its business priorities or financial condition, or due to other circumstances may no longer be able to fulfill its obligations under our agreement, which would negatively impact our ability to sell our products in certain markets and to generate revenues from product sales. If we do not continue to build on our commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates, if approved.
Our profitability will depend significantly on our ability to sell enough product at competitive prices and on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement through governmental or private third-party payors. The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain. Our product candidates may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage and reimbursement practices, or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for new or current products could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.
The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage, and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. In the United States, recently enacted legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenue we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates even if those product candidates may obtain marketing approval. See the section titled, “ Business - Government Regulation - Coverage and Reimbursement .”
Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments such as gene therapy products. Through December 2025, the approved list price of Attruby in the United States was $18,759.12 for a 28-day supply, which was subsequently increased to $19,790.00 in January 2026. A significant percentage of patients rely on government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, for their coverage of drug and other medical care, so the availability of federal and state coverage of Attruby is critical to the success of our commercialization efforts for Attruby in the United States. Sales of Attruby or any product candidates, if approved, that we may identify will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of such drugs will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, it may not allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.
59

Table of Contents

Additionally, we may develop companion diagnostic tests for use with Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates. We, or our collaborators, may be required to obtain coverage and reimbursement for these tests separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement we seek for our product candidates, once approved. Even if we obtain regulatory approval or clearance for such companion diagnostics, there is significant uncertainty regarding our ability to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for the same reasons applicable to our product candidates. Medicare reimbursement methodologies, whether under Part A, Part B, or clinical laboratory fee schedule may be amended from time to time, and we cannot predict what effect any change to these methodologies would have on any product or product candidate or companion diagnostic for which we receive approval. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from both third-party payors for the companion diagnostic tests that we develop and for which we obtain regulatory approval could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to penetrate foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.
We have partnered with Bayer and Alexion to commercialize Beyonttra in Europe and Japan, respectively, and we plan to commercialize Attruby and Beyonttra in other foreign markets. We may also commercialize in foreign markets any future drugs we develop for which we obtain commercial rights through additional partnerships with third parties or directly by ourselves. In addition, we may agree to supply drug product or API to a commercial partner in other foreign markets similar to our agreement with Bayer. In doing so, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:
• the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting, compliance and legal requirements;
• different medical practices and customs in foreign countries affecting acceptance in the marketplace;
• import, export or other distribution licensing requirements;
• the potential failure of obtaining and maintaining required licenses with foreign regulatory authorities that are required to ship API or distribute our drug product to customers or commercial partners like Bayer and Alexion;
• longer accounts receivable collection times;
• longer lead times for shipping;
• language barriers for technical training;
• reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries, and related prevalence of bioequivalent or generic alternatives to therapeutics;
• foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations;
• potential resource constraints, including with respect to patients’ ability to obtain reimbursement for our products in foreign markets; and
• the interpretation of contractual provisions governed by foreign laws in the event of a contract dispute.
Any of these factors could impair our ability to commercialize Attruby and Beyonttra and any future drugs we may develop or for which we obtain commercial rights outside the United States, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
60

Table of Contents

If we fail to comply with healthcare laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial conditions could be adversely affected.
Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute pharmaceutical products. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of ownership, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. See the section titled, “ Business - Government Regulation - Other Regulatory Matters .”
Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities, including compensation of physicians with stock or stock options, could, despite efforts to comply, be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Additionally, the FDA or foreign regulators may not agree that we have mitigated any risk of bias in our clinical trials due to payments or equity interests provided to investigators or institutions which could limit a regulator’s acceptance of those clinical trial data in support of a marketing application. Moreover, efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, integrity and oversight agreements to resolve allegations of non-compliance, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.
61

Table of Contents

Third party patient assistance programs that receive financial support from companies have become the subject of enhanced government and regulatory scrutiny. Government enforcement agencies have shown increased interest in pharmaceutical companies’ product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements. The U.S. government has established guidelines that suggest that it is lawful for pharmaceutical manufacturers to make donations to charitable organizations who provide co-pay assistance to Medicare patients, provided that such organizations, among other things, are bona fide charities, are entirely independent of and not controlled by the manufacturer, provide aid to applicants on a first-come basis according to consistent financial criteria and do not link aid to use of a donor’s product. However, donations to patient assistance programs have received some negative publicity and have been the subject of multiple government enforcement actions, related to allegations regarding their use to promote branded pharmaceutical products over other less costly alternatives. Specifically, in recent years, there have been multiple settlements resulting out of government claims challenging the legality of their patient assistance programs under a variety of federal and state laws. It is possible that we may make grants to independent charitable foundations that help financially needy patients with their premium, co-pay, and co-insurance obligations. If we choose to do so, and if we or our vendors or donation recipients are deemed to fail to comply with relevant laws, regulations or evolving government guidance in the operation of these programs, we could be subject to damages, fines, penalties, or other criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions or enforcement actions. We cannot ensure that our compliance controls, policies, and procedures will be sufficient to protect against acts of our employees, business partners, or vendors that may violate the laws or regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate. Regardless of whether we have complied with the law, a government investigation could impact our business practices, harm our reputation, divert the attention of management, increase our expenses, and reduce the availability of foundation support for our patients who need assistance. Further, it is possible that changes in insurer policies regarding co-pay coupons and/or the introduction and enactment of new legislation or regulatory action could restrict or otherwise negatively affect these patient support programs, which could result in fewer patients using affected products, and therefore could have a material adverse effect on our sales, business, and financial condition. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the current U.S. presidential administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the current U.S. presidential administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs. We cannot predict how the implementation of and any further changes to this rule will affect our business.
Failure to comply with health and other personal data protection laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation and/or adverse publicity, and could negatively affect our operating results and business.
We and any potential collaborators may be subject to federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security). In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, U.S. state consumer privacy laws (e.g., the California Consumer Privacy Act), and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”). Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to civil, criminal, and administrative penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.
In addition, as discussed further in the section titled, “ Business - Government Regulation – U.S. Data Collection, ” a number of U.S. states have passed or are considering comprehensive privacy laws that may impact our business.
The uncertainty surrounding the implementation of recent and emerging state privacy laws, regulations and standards increases the risk to our business. Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.
62

Table of Contents

Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of any products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. See the section titled, “ Business - Government Regulation - Current and Future Legislation .”
In addition, the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act (“CREATES Act”), was enacted in 2019 requiring sponsors of approved NDAs and BLAs to provide enough product samples on commercially reasonable, market-based terms to entities developing generic drugs and biosimilar biological products. The law establishes a private right of action allowing developers to sue application holders that refuse to sell them product samples needed to support their applications. If we are required to provide product samples or allocate additional resources to respond to such requests or any legal challenges under this law, our business could be adversely impacted.
There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates, if approved. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. For example, the current administration is pursuing a two-fold strategy to reduce drug costs in the United States. While it is unclear whether and how the current administration’s proposals will be implemented, these policies are likely to have a negative impact on the pharmaceutical industry and on our ability to receive adequate revenues for our products. The current administration has threatened to impose significant tariffs on pharmaceutical manufacturers that do not adopt pricing policies such as most-favored-nation pricing, which would tie the price for drugs in the United States to the lowest price in a group of other countries. While the United States has not implemented these tariffs, the United States could impose them with minimal notice to the public. In response, multiple manufacturers have entered into confidential pricing agreements with the federal government. On the other hand, the current administration is pursuing traditional regulatory pathways to impose drug pricing policies and published two proposed regulations in December 2025, referred to as GLOBE and GUARD. If finalized, these regulations would implement mandatory payment models under which manufacturers of eligible drugs would be required to pay rebates to the federal government on a portion of the units of their drugs that are reimbursed by Medicare, with the rebate amount based on most-favored-nation pricing. Imposing a rebate in the United States that is based on drug prices outside the United States would mark a drastic and unprecedented shift in the U.S. pharmaceutical market, and while the impact of the GLOBE and GUARD proposed regulations, if finalized, cannot yet be determined, it is likely to be significant depending on the final language. Even regulatory proposals or executive actions that are ultimately deemed unlawful could negatively impact the U.S. pharmaceutical sector and our business. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:
• the demand for Attruby and Beyonttra and our product candidates, if approved;
• our ability to receive or set a price that we believe is fair for our future products;
• our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability;
• the amount of taxes that we are required to pay; and
• the availability of capital.
We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, lower reimbursement, and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize Attruby and our product candidates, if approved.
63

Table of Contents

If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program or other governmental pricing programs, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.
We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, the 340B drug pricing program, and the VA’s FSS pricing program. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, we are required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available to the states for our drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data reported by us on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS, the federal agency that administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of innovator products, the best price for each drug which, in general, represents the lowest price available from the manufacturer to any entity in the United States in any pricing structure, calculated to include all sales and associated rebates, discounts and other price concessions. Our failure to comply with these price reporting and rebate payment obligations could negatively impact our financial results.
The ACA made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. CMS issued a final regulation, which became effective on April 1, 2016, to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program under the ACA. The issuance of the final regulation has increased and will continue to increase our costs and the complexity of compliance, has been and will continue to be time-consuming to implement, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, particularly if CMS challenges the approach we take in our implementation of the final regulation.
Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula based on the average manufacturer price and Medicaid rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, and in general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. Any additional future changes to the definition of average manufacturer price and the Medicaid rebate amount under the ACA, other legislation, or in regulation could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact our results of operations.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), which administers the 340B program, issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities, which became effective on January 1, 2019. We also are required to report our 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis. Implementation of the civil monetary penalties regulation and the issuance of any other final regulations and guidance could affect our obligations under the 340B program in ways we cannot anticipate. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in the inpatient setting.
Pricing and rebate calculations vary across products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. In the case of our Medicaid pricing data, if we become aware that our reporting for a prior quarter was incorrect, or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we are obligated to resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. Such restatements and recalculations increase our costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate program and could result in an overage or underage in our rebate liability for past quarters. Price recalculations also may affect the ceiling price at which we are required to offer our products under the 340B program or could require us to issue refunds to 340B covered entities.
Significant civil monetary penalties can be applied if we are found to have knowingly submitted any false pricing information to CMS, or if we fail to submit the required price data on a timely basis. Such conduct also could be grounds for CMS to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs. Significant civil monetary penalties also can be applied if we are found to have knowingly and intentionally charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price. We cannot assure you that our submissions will not be found by CMS or HRSA to be incomplete or incorrect.
64

Table of Contents

To be eligible to have our products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, as noted above, we participate in the VA’s FSS pricing program. As part of this program, we are obligated to make our products available for procurement on an FSS contract under which we must comply with standard government terms and conditions and charge a price that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price (“FCP”), to four federal agencies (the VA, U.S. Department of Defense, or DOD, Public Health Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard). The FCP is based on the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (“Non-FAMP”), which we calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. Pursuant to applicable law, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to significant penalties for each item of false information. These obligations also contain extensive disclosure and certification requirements.
We also participate in the Tricare Retail Pharmacy program, under which we pay quarterly rebates on utilization of innovator products that are dispensed through the Tricare Retail Pharmacy network to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and FCP. We are required to list our covered products on a Tricare Agreement in order for these products to be eligible for DOD formulary inclusion. If we overcharge the government in connection with our FSS contract or Tricare Agreement, whether due to a misstated FCP or otherwise, we are required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges can result in allegations against us under the FCA and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and responding to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.
Federal legislative and regulatory efforts to implement reference pricing or most-favored-nation pricing models could impact our product revenues and materially harm our business.
On May 12, 2025, the current administration issued an executive order calling on pharmaceutical manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the prices of medicines in the U.S. and directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to communicate most-favored-nation (MFN) price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to align prices with those in comparably developed nations and, in the event significant progress towards MFN pricing is not delivered, to propose rulemaking to impose MFN pricing.
Since the May 12, 2025 order, the current administration has continued to exert pressure on drug manufacturers to implement MFN pricing, including by suggesting that the administration may impose significant tariffs on pharmaceuticals if such manufacturers do not reach agreements to implement MFN pricing. Further, in November 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) introduced the GENEROUS (GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid) Model, a voluntary Medicaid payment initiative under which participating drug manufacturers may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs that are intended to provide such Medicaid programs with an MFN price for the manufacturers’ products. Additionally, in December 2025, CMS announced proposals for new mandatory demonstration payment models through two proposed rules under its Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) authority, the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing (“GLOBE”) for Medicare Part B and Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (“GUARD”) for Medicare Part D. If finalized, these models would impose additional mandatory rebates on manufacturers of certain Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D drugs, for select Medicare populations intended to represent 25% of Medicare patients, if the Medicare prices for such products exceed those paid in economically comparable countries. Both the GLOBE and GUARD models have proposed seven-year testing periods, with the GLOBE model proposed to begin on October 1, 2026 and the GUARD model proposed to begin on January 1, 2027.
If the GLOBE and GUARD models are finalized as proposed under CMMI authority, we could be required to pay additional rebates on products reimbursed by Medicare for the covered populations during the applicable model periods. In addition, if MFN pricing or similar reference pricing policies are enacted or implemented in the U.S. outside of the CMMI framework and applied more broadly, we could be required to pay rebates on products utilization by a broader portion of U.S. patients to align with prices in certain reference countries. We currently derive the substantial portion of our revenue from U.S. sales, and any requirement to pay additional rebates in the U.S. to match international reference prices would impact our overall net product revenue.
65

Table of Contents

MFN pricing models in the U.S. could also affect our international pricing strategy and future decisions on reimbursement and commercialization in certain jurisdictions. If our U.S. pricing becomes tied to international reference prices, especially in light of our licensing agreements with Bayer and Alexion, we may face decisions regarding pricing in foreign markets that could result in reduced patient access internationally, affect our relationships with foreign regulatory authorities and payers, or impact our ability to obtain or maintain reimbursement approvals in ex-U.S. markets. These reforms remain subject to change, potential legal challenges, or expansion through additional rulemaking or sub regulatory guidance, creating uncertainty for our overall pricing strategy. It remains to be seen whether and how these drug pricing initiatives will apply to our products, how they will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry, and whether similar reform measures may be adopted in the future.
Recent federal legislation and actions by state and local governments may permit reimportation of drugs from foreign countries into the United States, including foreign countries where the drugs are sold at lower prices than in the United States, which could materially adversely affect our operating results.
We face competition in the United States for Attruby and may face competition for our product candidates if approved, from therapies sourced from foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. In the United States, the Medicare Modernization Act contains provisions that may change U.S. importation laws and expand pharmacists’ and wholesalers’ ability to import cheaper versions of an approved drug and competing products from Canada, where there are government price controls. The FDA also issued a final guidance document outlining a pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code (“NDC”) for an FDA-approved drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country. See the section titled, “ Business-Government Regulation-Current and Future Legislation ” for more information regarding legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. If certain of these changes are implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. The regulatory and market implications of the final rule and guidance are unknown at this time. Proponents of drug reimportation may attempt to pass legislation that would directly allow reimportation under certain circumstances. Legislation or regulations allowing the reimportation of drugs, if enacted, could decrease the price we receive for any products that we may develop and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability. We will continue to monitor developments and their potential effect on our business.
We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve commercial success or regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize any product candidates we may develop and ultimately harm our financial condition.
The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition for Attruby and Beyonttra and we may face competition with respect to any product candidates that we seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.
Our approved product faces competition from other products approved for the same indication, and there are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the development and commercialization of products for the treatment of the indications that some of our lead clinical-stage product candidates are pursuing. If any competitors for our product candidates receive FDA approval before we do, our product candidates would not be the first treatment on the market, and our market share may be limited. In addition to competition from other companies targeting our target indications, any products we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies.
Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do.
66

Table of Contents

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 or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for treatment of our targeted disease indications or similar indications, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over our product candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours and may obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA for indications that we are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, products or technologies developed by our competitors may render our product candidates uneconomical or obsolete and we may not be successful in marketing those product candidates, once approved, against competitors.
In addition, we could face litigation or other proceedings with respect to the scope, ownership, validity and/or enforceability of our patents relating to our competitors’ products and our competitors may allege that our products infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize. See the section titled, “ Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property .”
If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Our ability to successfully identify patients and acquire a significant market share will be necessary for us to achieve profitability and growth.
We focus research and product development on treatments for Mendelian diseases, many of which are rare or orphan indications. Our projections of both the number of individuals who are affected by our target disease indications and have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The effort to identify patients with diseases we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our products and product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our products or product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates under development in our key value driver programs, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability despite obtaining such significant market share. In addition, market share could be limited by the availability of other treatments. In particular, Attruby is not the first treatment on the market for ATTR-CM, and its market share and potential to generate revenues may be limited.
Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates
We may encounter substantial delays in clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct or complete clinical trials on the expected timelines, if at all.
Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any of our ongoing and planned clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials are initiated or conducted on a timely basis, issues may arise that could result in the suspension or termination of such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our ongoing and future clinical trials may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include:
• inability to generate sufficient preclinical, toxicology or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation or continuation of clinical trials;
• delays in confirming target engagement, patient selection or other relevant biomarkers to be utilized in preclinical and clinical product candidate development;
• delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory agencies as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials;
67

Table of Contents