Overview
Novavax, Inc., together
with our wholly-owned Swedish subsidiary, Novavax AB, is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development
and commercialization of recombinant nanoparticle vaccines and adjuvants. Using innovative proprietary recombinant nanoparticle
vaccine technology, we produce vaccine candidates to efficiently and effectively respond to both known and emerging disease threats.
We were incorporated
in 1987 under the laws of the State of Delaware. Our principal executive offices are located at 20 Firstfield Road, Gaithersburg,
Maryland, 20878, and our telephone number is (240) 268-2000. Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under
the symbol “NVAX.”
Our vaccine candidates
are genetically engineered three-dimensional nanostructures that incorporate recombinant proteins critical to disease pathogenesis
and may elicit differentiated immune responses, which may be more efficacious than naturally occurring immunity or traditional
vaccine. Our product pipeline targets a variety of infectious diseases, with clinical vaccine candidates against respiratory syncytial
virus (“RSV”), influenza and Ebola virus (“EBOV”), and preclinical programs for other infectious disease
vaccine candidates.
We are also developing
immune stimulating saponin-based adjuvants through our wholly owned Swedish subsidiary, Novavax AB. Our lead adjuvant, Matrix-M™,
has been shown to enhance immune responses and was well-tolerated in multiple clinical trials that we have conducted.
Product Pipeline
Our product pipeline
includes vaccine candidates engineered to elicit differentiated immune responses with the potential to provide increased protection.
Our nanoparticle technology targets antigens with conserved epitopes essential for viral function. Our vaccine technology has the
potential to be applied broadly to a wide variety of human infectious diseases.
Program
|
|
Current
Development Stage
|
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (“RSV”)
|
|
|
·
Infants via Maternal Immunization*
|
|
Phase 3
|
·
Older Adults
|
|
Phase 2
|
·
Pediatrics
|
|
Phase 1
|
|
|
|
Nanoparticle Influenza (“NanoFlu”)
|
|
Phase 1/2
|
Combination Influenza/RSV
|
|
Preclinical
|
|
|
|
Emerging Viruses
|
|
|
·
Ebola Virus (“EBOV”)
|
|
Phase 1
|
·
Zika Virus (“ZIKV”)
|
|
Preclinical
|
*Supported by the $89.1
million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (“BMGF”)
A current summary of
our significant research and development programs and status of the related product candidates in development follows:
Respiratory Syncytial Virus
We have identified
three susceptible target populations that could benefit from the development of our respiratory syncytial virus fusion (F) protein
nanoparticle vaccine candidate (“RSV F Vaccine”) in different formulations: infants via maternal immunization, older
adults (60 years of age and older) and children six months to five years of age (“pediatrics”). We believe our RSV
F Vaccine represents a multi-billion dollar revenue opportunity, worldwide. Currently, there is no approved RSV vaccine available.
Repeat
infection and lifelong susceptibility to RSV are common and we currently estimate the global cost burden of RSV to be in excess
of $88 billion.
1
Despite decades of effort to develop an RSV vaccine, there are currently no licensed vaccines. We
made a breakthrough in developing a vaccine that targets the fusion protein, or F-protein, of the virus. The F-protein has highly
conserved amino acid sequences, called antigenic sites, which we believe are ideal vaccine targets. We genetically engineered a
novel F-protein antigen resulting in enhanced immunogenicity by exposing a number of these antigenic sites. The Novavax RSV F Vaccine
assembles into a recombinant protein nanoparticle optimized for F-protein antigen presentation. We are seeking to bring the first
RSV vaccine to market to combat the 64 million RSV infections that occur globally each year.
2
,
3
RSV Infants via
Maternal Immunization Program
Burden
of Disease
RSV
is the most common cause of lower respiratory tract infections and the leading viral cause of severe lower respiratory tract disease
in infants and young children worldwide.
4
,
5
In the U.S., RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization of infants, and globally, is second only to malaria as a cause of death
in children under one year of age.
6
,
7
Despite the induction of post-infection immunity, repeat infection and lifelong susceptibility to RSV is common.
8
,
9
Clinical
Trial Update
Prepare
Phase 3 Trial (Ongoing)
We initiated Prepare™,
a global pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of our RSV F Vaccine, using aluminum phosphate as an adjuvant, in approximately of 4,600
healthy pregnant women in December 2015. The primary objective of the Prepare trial is to determine the efficacy of maternal immunization
with the RSV F Vaccine against symptomatic RSV lower respiratory tract infection with objective measures of medical significance
in infants through a minimum of the first 90 days of life and up to the first six months of life.
The Prepare trial utilizes
a group sequential design. We will initiate a prescribed interim efficacy analysis when we have approximately 4,600 enrolled women,
currently expected in mid-2018, and report results from this interim analysis, expected in early 2019. Assuming successful interim
analysis results, the trial would be concluded without further enrollment. In 2017, with approximately 1,300 participants in the
Prepare trial, we conducted an informational analysis that provided a positive indication of our vaccine’s potential efficacy
(between 45% and 100%
10
), further de-risking this important program. These results have allowed us to make go-forward
decisions relating to various program-related activities.
The Prepare trial is
supported by a grant (the “Grant”) of up to $89.1 million from BMGF. The Grant supports development activities, product
licensing efforts and World Health Organization (“WHO”) prequalification of our RSV F Vaccine. In 2015, along with
the Grant agreement (the “Grant Agreement”), we concurrently entered into a Global Access Commitments Agreement with
BMGF, under which we agreed to make a certain amount of the RSV F Vaccine available and accessible at affordable pricing to people
in certain low and middle income countries.
1
Estimated value of life
lost, future health implications and lost earnings; preliminary data based on Novavax research of available epidemiology and health
outcomes data
2
Nair, H.,
et al
., (2010)
Lancet. 375:1545 – 1555
3
WHO Acute Respiratory Infections
September 2009 Update:
http://apps.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/ari/en/index2.html
4
Nair, H.,
et al
., (2010)
Lancet. 375:1545 - 1555
5
CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/rsv/research/us-surveillance.html
6
Hall, C.B.
et al
. (2013)
Pediatrics; 132(2):E341-348
7
Oxford Vaccine Group: http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/rsv
8
Glezen, W.P.
et al
.
(1986) Am J Dis Child; 140:543-546
9
Glenn, G.M.
et al
. (2016)
JID; 213(3):411-12
10
Assumes 2:1 randomization
Phase 2 Safety and Immunogenicity
Trial (Completed)
In September 2015,
we announced positive top-line data from our Phase 2 clinical trial of our RSV F Vaccine in 50 healthy pregnant women and their
infants. This clinical trial evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of our RSV F Vaccine in pregnant women in their third trimester,
and assessed the transplacental transfer of maternal antibodies induced by the vaccine. The trial also examined the impact of maternal
immunization on infant safety during the first year of life and RSV-specific antibody levels through the infants’ first six
months of life. Immunized women demonstrated a geometric mean 14-fold rise in anti-F IgG, a 29-fold rise in palivizumab-competing
antibodies and 2.7 and 2.1-fold rises in microneutralization titers against RSV/A and RSV/B, respectively. In contrast, women who
received placebo demonstrated no significant change in antibody levels. The infants’ antibody levels at delivery averaged
90-100% of the mothers’ levels, indicating efficient transplacental transfer of antibodies from mother to infant. The estimated
half-lives of infant PCA, anti-F IgG, and RSV/A and RSV/B microneutralizing antibodies, based on data through day 60, were 41,
30, 36 and 34 days, respectively.
Fast Track Designation
The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (“FDA”) granted Fast Track designation to our RSV F Vaccine for protection of infants via maternal immunization.
Fast Track designation is intended for products that treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions, and that demonstrate
the potential to address unmet medical needs for such diseases or conditions. The program is designed to facilitate development
and expedite review of drugs to treat serious and life-threatening conditions so that approved products can reach the market expeditiously.
RSV Older Adults
Program
Burden
of Disease
Older
adults (60 years of age and older) are at increased risk for RSV disease due to immunosenescence, the age-related decline in the
human immune system. In this population, RSV is an important respiratory virus, distinct from influenza, which is frequently responsible
for serious lower respiratory tract disease and may lead to hospitalization or even death. Additionally, RSV infection can lead
to exacerbation of underlying co-morbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), asthma and congestive
heart failure. In the U.S., the incidence rate is approximately 2.5 million infections per year, and RSV is increasingly recognized
as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the population of 64 million older adults.
11
,
12
Based on our analysis of published literature applied to
2014 U.S. population estimates, the disease causes 207,000 hospitalizations and 16,000 deaths among adults older than 65.
13
,
14
Annually, we estimate that there are approximately 900,000
medical interventions directly caused by RSV disease across all populations.
15
,
16
11
Falsey, A.R.
et al.
(2005)
NEJM. 352:1749–59 extrapolated to 2015 census population
12
Falsey, A.R.
et al.
(1995)
JID
.
172:389-94
13
Falsey, A.R.
et al.
(2005)
NEJM. 352:1749–59 extrapolated to 2015 census population
14
W.W. Thompson et al. Mortality
associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003; 289(2): 179-186
15
K. Widmer
et al
. Rates
of hospitalizations for respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and influenza virus in older adults. J Infect Dis.
2012; 206: 56-62
16
K. Widmer
et al
. Respiratory
syncytial virus & human metapneumovirus-associated emergency department and hospital burden in adults. Influenza and Other
Respiratory Viruses. 2014; 8(3): 347-352.
Clinical
Trial Updates and Analyses
Phase 2
(E-205) Safety and Immunogenicity Clinical Trial (Completed)
In July 2017, we announced
positive top-line data from our Phase 2 clinical trial of our RSV F Vaccine in older adults known as E-205. The objective of the
E-205 trial was to assess safety and immunogenicity to one and two dose regimens of the RSV F Vaccine, with and without aluminum
phosphate or our proprietary Matrix-M adjuvant, in older adults. The trial was a randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled
trial which enrolled 300 older adults in the Southern Hemisphere. Participants were enrolled and vaccinated outside of the RSV
season to best assess immunogenicity. Immunogenicity results indicated both aluminum phosphate and Matrix-M adjuvants increased
the magnitude, duration and quality of the immune response relative to RSV F antigen alone. All formulations and regimens were
safe and well-tolerated. The data support the inclusion of adjuvanted formulations of our RSV F Vaccine in future older adult trials,
although we do not currently expect to initiate such trials in 2018 without additional funding.
Further
Analyses of Prior Clinical Trials
Following the September
2016 announcement of top-line results of Resolve™, our Phase 3 clinical trial of our RSV F Vaccine in older adults conducted
during the 2015-16 RSV season in the U.S., we conducted multiple analyses on the clinical data from the Resolve trial, as well
as the other completed Phase 2 clinical trials conducted in older adults. Our analyses of these clinical trials sought to better
understand their results. More detailed descriptions of each of these RSV older adult clinical trials are found under “Clinical
Trial Updates and Analyses” below; the trials are named and briefly described in the following table:
Clinical Trial Name
|
|
Phase
|
|
Description
|
|
Conducted
|
|
Participants(#)
|
E-201
|
|
Phase 2
|
|
Efficacy in prevention of all symptomatic RSV disease
|
|
2014-15 RSV season
|
|
1,600
|
Resolve (or E-301)
|
|
Phase 3
|
|
Efficacy in prevention of msLRTD
|
|
2015-16 RSV season
|
|
11,856
|
E-202 Rollover
|
|
Phase 2
|
|
Immunogenicity in response to serial immunization after E-201
|
|
2015-16 RSV season
|
|
1,329
|
E-205
|
|
Phase 2
|
|
Immunogenicity in one or two doses, with or without adjuvant
|
|
2017
|
|
300
|
We have found that
seasonal variation in attack rate, meaning the incidence of infectious disease in an at-risk population, may have a large impact
on demonstrating vaccine efficacy in a particular year. Lower attack rates may mean that either the virus is less common in a given
season, or alternatively, that the population being studied has increased intrinsic resistance in that season due to a variety
of potential factors such as recent prior exposure. In our E-201 trial, we witnessed a high attack rate and showed a clear demonstration
of efficacy. In our Resolve trial the following year, we observed a primary endpoint attack rate of only one-fourth that of the
previous season. This scenario represents a conundrum that influenza vaccine developers have experienced for decades: “low
attack rate” influenza seasons make it very difficult to demonstrate vaccine efficacy.
Additional further
analyses of the Resolve trial data indicate that our RSV F Vaccine was associated with a 61% reduction in hospitalizations due
to COPD exacerbations, and the same analysis of the E-201 trial showed a similar signal, supporting this finding. We believe that
such higher-risk patients represent an unmet medical need with a significant healthcare cost burden that could potentially be addressed
by such a vaccine.
Resolve
(E-301) Phase 3 Trial (Completed)
In September 2016,
we announced top-line data from our Resolve trial. Resolve was a randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial that began
in November 2015, and was fully enrolled with 11,856 older adults at 60 sites in the U.S. by December 2015. The trial did not meet
its pre-specified primary or secondary efficacy objectives and did not demonstrate vaccine efficacy. The primary objective of the
Resolve trial was to demonstrate efficacy in the prevention of moderate-severe RSV (“msLRTD”), as defined by the presence
of multiple lower respiratory tract symptoms. The secondary objective of the trial was to demonstrate efficacy of the RSV F Vaccine
in reducing the incidence of all symptomatic respiratory disease due to RSV ARD. The trial also evaluated the safety of an unadjuvanted,
135 microgram dose of the RSV F Vaccine compared to placebo. Consistent with our previous clinical experience, the vaccine was
well-tolerated.
Phase 2
(E-202) Rollover Trial (Completed)
In September 2016,
we announced positive top-line data from our E-202 rollover trial of our RSV F Vaccine in older adults. The trial was a randomized,
observer-blinded, placebo-controlled rollover trial, which enrolled 1,329 older adults from our prior E-201 trial, conducted at
the same 10 sites in the U.S. as the E-201 trial. The primary objectives of the trial were to evaluate safety and serum anti-F
IgG antibody concentrations in response to immunization with the RSV F Vaccine. The exploratory objectives of the trial evaluated
the efficacy of a second annual dose of the RSV F Vaccine in the prevention of RSV ARD and RSV msLRTD. Participants previously
randomized to receive 135 microgram RSV F Vaccine or placebo were re-enrolled and re-randomized to receive either 135 microgram
RSV F Vaccine or placebo. This trial design resulted in four separate trial arms: a) participants receiving a placebo in both the
first trial and second trial (“Placebo-Placebo”); b) participants receiving RSV F Vaccine in the first trial and placebo
in the second trial (“Vaccine-Placebo”); c) participants receiving placebo in the first trial and RSV F Vaccine in
the second trial (“Placebo-Vaccine”); and d) participants receiving RSV F Vaccine in both the first trial and second
trial (“Vaccine-Vaccine”).
The E-202 rollover
trial demonstrated immunogenicity in all active vaccine recipients, with a 6-fold increase in anti-F IgG in the Placebo-Vaccine
arm, consistent with the E-201 trial. There was higher anti-F IgG at baseline in the Vaccine-Vaccine arm compared to the Placebo-Vaccine
arm and the Vaccine-Vaccine arm showed a greater than 2-fold increase in anti-F IgG from the higher baseline.
Phase 2
(E-201) Trial in Older Adults (Completed)
In August 2015, we
announced positive top-line data from our E-201 trial of our RSV F Vaccine in 1,600 older adults. The E-201 trial was designed
to prospectively examine the incidence of all symptomatic respiratory illnesses associated with RSV infection, in community-living
older adults who were treated with placebo. The trial also evaluated safety and immunogenicity of our RSV F Vaccine compared to
placebo. Finally, the trial estimated the efficacy of our RSV F Vaccine in reducing the incidence of respiratory illness due to
RSV. The trial was the first to demonstrate efficacy of an active RSV immunization in any clinical trial population. In the per
protocol population, the clinical trial showed statistically significant vaccine efficacy in prevention of all symptomatic RSV
disease (41%) and, in an ad hoc analysis, showed a decrease in RSV disease with any symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection
(45%) in older adults. The clinical trial established an attack rate for symptomatic RSV disease of 4.9% in older adults, 95% of
which included lower respiratory track symptoms. Efficacy against more severe RSV illness, defined by the presence of multiple
lower respiratory tract symptoms or signs associated with difficulty breathing, was 64% in ad hoc analyses.
RSV Pediatrics
Program
Burden
of Disease
There
are currently approximately 18 million children in the U.S. between six months and five years of age.
17
By the age
of five, essentially all children will have been exposed to RSV and will likely have developed natural immunity against the virus,
thus decreasing the rate of severe disease in these children. In the U.S., RSV is responsible for approximately 57,000 hospitalizations
of children under five years of age annually, the vast majority of which occur in infants less than one year old, and especially
those under six months of age.
18
,
19
,
20
,
21
,
22
Clinical Trial Update
In September 2015,
we announced positive top-line data from our Phase 1 clinical trial of our RSV F Vaccine in healthy children between two and six
years of age. This clinical trial evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of our RSV F Vaccine, with one or two doses, with or
without aluminum phosphate adjuvant. Trial enrollment was concluded with a smaller than planned cohort so that dosing could be
completed ahead of the 2014-15 RSV season. The vaccine was well-tolerated and serum samples collected from a subset of 18 immunized
children in the per-protocol population, demonstrated that the RSV F Vaccine was highly immunogenic at all formulations and regimens.
There were greater than 10-fold increases in both anti-F IgG and PCA antibody titers in the adjuvanted group and greater than 6-fold
increases in anti-F IgG and PCA antibody titers in the unadjuvanted group. Development of our RSV F Vaccine for pediatrics would
likely follow successful development of our RSV F Vaccine for maternal immunization.
17
U.S. Census.
www.census.go/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php
18
Stockman, L.J.
et al
(2012) Pediatr Infect Dis J. 31: 5-9
19
CDC update May 5, 2015.
http://www.cdc.gov/rsv/research/us-surveillance.html
20
Boyce, T.G.
et al
(2000)
Pediatrics; 137: 865-870
21
Hall, C.B.
et al
(2009)
NEJM; 360(6): 588-98
22
Hall, C.B.
et al
(2013)
Pediatrics; 132(2): E341-8
Influenza
Burden of
Disease
Influenza is a world-wide
infectious disease that causes illness in humans ranging from mild to life-threatening symptoms or even death. Serious illness
occurs not only in susceptible populations such as pediatrics and older adults, but also in the general population largely because
of infection by unique strains of influenza for which most humans have not developed protective antibodies. Current estimates for
seasonal influenza vaccine growth in the top seven markets (U.S., Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK), show a potential
increase from approximately $3.2 billion in the 2012-13 season to $5.3 billion by the 2021-22 season.
23
The Advisory Committee
for Immunization Practices of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recommends that all persons aged
six months and older be vaccinated annually against seasonal influenza. Influenza is a major burden on public health worldwide:
an estimated one million deaths each year are attributed to influenza.
24
It is further estimated that, each year,
influenza attacks between 5% and 10% of adults and 20% to 30% of children, causing significant levels of illness, hospitalization
and death.
25
One important advantage of recombinant seasonal influenza vaccines, like the candidate we are developing,
is that once licensed for commercial sale, large quantities of such vaccine could potentially be manufactured quickly and in a
cost-effective manner, without the use of either live influenza virus or eggs. Our recombinant influenza nanoparticles also can
display conserved antigenic regions, which have the potential to elicit broadly neutralizing antibodies that appear to protect
against a range of “drifted” strains, or influenza strains in which, over time, the hemagglutinin antigen undergoes
an accumulation of genetic mutations at the hemagglutinin antigen sites that bind with neutralizing antibodies, potentially resulting
in reduced protection of those antibodies. Additionally, nanoparticles offer improved purity and manufacturability and advantages
for co-formulation with other nanoparticle-based vaccines.
Clinical
Trial Update
In February 2018, we
reported positive top-line results from our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of our nanoparticle seasonal influenza vaccine candidate,
including our proprietary Matrix-M adjuvant (“NanoFlu™ vaccine”), in older adults that was initiated in September
2017. The trial was a randomized, observer-blinded, active comparator-controlled trial in approximately 330 healthy older adults.
The primary objective of the trial was to assess the safety and immunogenicity of two concentrations (15 micrograms or 60 micrograms)
of NanoFlu vaccine compared to the leading licensed egg-based, high-dose influenza vaccine for older adults (“IIV3-HD”).
Key findings from the trial include that Nanoflu vaccine induced:
|
•
|
Significantly higher hemagglutination inhibition (“HAI”) antibody responses against
homologous H1N1 and H3N2 influenza viruses and comparable HAI responses against the homologous B/Brisbane strain;
|
|
•
|
Significantly higher HAI immune responses against historic and forward-drifted H3N2 virus strains;
and
|
|
•
|
Strong neutralizing antibody responses that correlate with HAI results.
|
Overall, NanoFlu vaccine
was well-tolerated over the three-week trial period. Given the strength of these trial results, we have submitted for publication
in a peer-reviewed medical journal and/or for presentation at an upcoming scientific meeting. Based on these results, we expect
to begin a Phase 2 trial of our NanoFlu vaccine in the third quarter of 2018.
23
Influenza Vaccines Forecasts.
Datamonitor (2013)
24
Resolution of the World Health
Assembly. (2003) WHA56.19. 28
25
WHO position paper (2012)
Weekly Epidemiol Record; 87(47): 461–76
Preclinical
Analyses
Preclinical data in
which NanoFlu was compared in a head-to-head challenge study against IIV3-HD, as well as IIV3-SD (standard dose) seasonal influenza
vaccine, was announced in August 2017 and provided a strong rationale for the initiation of the Phase 1/2 trial. Our NanoFlu vaccine
demonstrated significantly stronger and broader immune responses (microneutralizing antibodies) against homologous and heterologous
influenza strains, including a series of drifted H3N2 strains evolved across over more than a decade of influenza seasons. In this
preclinical challenge study, we showed that our NanoFlu vaccine was more protective than the licensed comparator vaccines against
both a homologous H3N2 virus and a ten-year old drifted H3N2 strain. In parallel, we announced the achievement of significant improvements
in manufacturing yields and product purity.
Emerging Viruses
Ebola Virus
EBOV, formerly known
as Ebola hemorrhagic fever, is a severe, often fatal illness in humans. Multiple strains of EBOV have been identified, the most
recent of which, the Makona EBOV strain, is associated with a case fatality rate of 50% to 90%.
26
There are currently
no licensed treatments proven to neutralize the virus, but a range of blood, immunological and drug therapies are under development.
Despite the development of such therapies, current vaccine approaches target either a previous strain of the virus or were initially
developed to be delivered by genetic vectors. In contrast, our EBOV glycoprotein vaccine candidate (“Ebola GP Vaccine”)
was developed using the Makona EBOV strain.
In July 2015, we announced
positive top-line data from our Phase 1 clinical trial of our Ebola GP Vaccine in ascending doses, with and without our Matrix-M
adjuvant, in 230 healthy adults. Participants received either one or two intramuscular injections ranging from 6.5 micrograms to
50 micrograms of antigen, with or without adjuvant, or placebo. Immunogenicity was assessed at multiple time points, including
days 28 and 35. These Phase 1 data demonstrated that our Ebola GP Vaccine is highly immunogenic, well-tolerated and, in conjunction
with our proprietary Matrix-M adjuvant, resulted in significant antigen dose-sparing. The adjuvanted Ebola GP Vaccine was highly
immunogenic at all dose levels; the adjuvanted two-dose regimens induced Ebola anti-GP antibody geometric mean responses between
45,000 and 70,000 ELISA units, representing a 500 to 750-fold rise over baseline at day 35. In 2015, we also announced successful
data from two separate non-human primate challenge studies of our Ebola GP Vaccine in which, in both cases, the challenge was lethal
for the control animal, whereas 100% of the immunized animals were protected.
Zika Virus
We initiated development
of a vaccine against the Zika virus (“ZIKV”) in response to the unmet global medical need for a response to this serious
disease. The subsequent evolving epidemiology of ZIKV, which saw significant reductions in cases both in the U.S. and around the
world in 2017, along with the uncertainty of governmental and non-governmental organization funding, has caused us to suspend these
development efforts in lieu of competing resources and corporate priorities around more promising product development.
Combination Respiratory Vaccine
Given the ongoing development
of our RSV F Vaccine and our desire to develop a combination respiratory vaccine with the potential to protect against both RSV
and seasonal influenza, we made the decision to shift our seasonal influenza vaccine development focus from VLP-based seasonal
influenza vaccines to nanoparticle-based seasonal influenza vaccines. We remain confident that a combination nanoparticle vaccine
against both RSV and influenza is feasible.
26
WHO:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/
CPLB Joint Venture (India)
CPL Biologicals Private
Limited (“CPLB”), our joint venture company with Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited (“Cadila”) in India, is
actively developing a number of vaccine candidates that were genetically engineered by us. CPLB is owned 20% by us and 80% by Cadila.
CPLB operates a manufacturing facility in India for the production of vaccines.
Seasonal Influenza
Since 2016, CPLB has
been marketing CadiFlu-S, its trivalent VLP influenza vaccine in India, with limited sales in 2017 and expected in 2018.
Rabies
In October 2016, CPLB
initiated its Phase 3 clinical trial in India of a recombinant rabies G protein vaccine candidate that can be administered in prophylactic
regimens, both pre and post-exposure. The post-exposure regimen has the potential to use fewer doses (three doses) than the current
standard of care (five doses). Data from the trial are expected in 2018.
Vaccine Technology
Our recombinant protein
nanoparticle vaccine technology is based on self-assembly of surface protein antigens from pathogenic organisms including viruses,
bacteria or parasites. The conformations of these nanoparticles are similar but not identical to the natural structure of surface
antigens of disease organisms, and lack the genetic material required for replication and therefore are not infectious. Potential
immunological advantages of protein nanoparticles may be associated with the nanoparticle conformation and the presentation of
key functional epitopes that are often immunologically hidden in the native pathogen. This leads to efficient recognition by the
immune system’s antigen presenting cells that trigger robust immune responses. Recognition of the nanoparticle vaccine’s
repeating protein patterns by the antigen presenting cells’ toll-like receptors to stimulate innate immunity and the high
purity and lack of synthetic material adds to the potential safety of recombinant nanoparticle vaccines. Protein nanoparticle vaccine
technology has expanded our early-stage vaccines in development to include both virus and non-virus disease targets. Our most advanced
protein nanoparticle vaccine candidate is our RSV F Vaccine, which self-assembles from our highly purified F-protein antigen.
Matrix Adjuvants
Adjuvants
are predominantly used to enable a vaccine to increase the amplitude of the immune response and qualitatively change it, broaden
its specificity to provide protection against related microorganisms and allow for effective immunization with much lower doses
of antigen. Novavax AB has developed a number of adjuvant formulations, all based on our proprietary Matrix™ technology.
These adjuvant formulations possess excellent immunostimulatory features with the ability to increase and prolong the protective
benefits of vaccines.
While
adjuvants based on novel, poorly characterized substances have been hampered by safety concerns and limited efficacy, Matrix adjuvants
stimulate strong antibody and cell-mediated immune responses. Matrix adjuvants may allow for lower antigen doses, longer-duration
immune responses and carry a lower risk for allergic reactions or other adverse events. Our Matrix technology typically induces
strong cellular activation of both Th1 and Th2 types, thereby generating all classes and subclasses of antibodies, as well as potent
cellular responses, including cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Our Matrix-M adjuvant provides a potent adjuvant effect that has been well-tolerated
in clinical trials. We also believe that the strong immune response and opportunity to reduce the quantity of antigen dose can
significantly reduce the production cost of our vaccines. This means that our Matrix-M adjuvant has the potential to be of significant
value when there is inadequate vaccine manufacturing capacity during an emerging disease threat such as an influenza pandemic.
Competition in
RSV, EBOV, Influenza and Other Vaccines
The vaccine market
is intensely competitive, characterized by rapid technological progress. Our technology is based upon utilizing the baculovirus
expression system in insect cells to make recombinant vaccines. We believe this system offers many advantages when compared to
other technologies and is uniquely well-suited for developing RSV and influenza vaccines, as well as vaccines against a number
of other infectious diseases.
There is currently
no approved RSV vaccine for sale in the world; however, a number of vaccine manufacturers, academic institutions and other organizations
currently have, or have had, programs to develop such a vaccine. In addition, many other companies are developing products to prevent
disease caused by RSV using a variety of technology platforms, including various viral vector technologies, monoclonal antibodies
(Mab), and competitive recombinant technologies. We believe that our RSV vaccine candidate, utilizing a recombinant F-protein antigen,
is more effective than RSV vaccine candidates in development by our competitors; however, such efficaciousness cannot be guaranteed.
Although we are not aware of all our competitors’ efforts, we believe that MedImmune, LLC (“MedImmune”), a subsidiary
of AstraZeneca PLC, may have the second most advanced RSV vaccine program after Novavax, as it has reported testing in Phase 1
and Phase 1/2 clinical trials of an intranasal, recombinant, live attenuated, RSV vaccine for the prevention of lower respiratory
tract disease caused by RSV, as well as a combination intranasal vaccine for the prevention of several infant respiratory illnesses,
including RSV. In older adults, MedImmune also conducted a Phase 2 trial of MEDI-7510 (recombinant F subunit with an adjuvant administered
intramuscularly). In both MedImmune vaccine programs, the trials did not report complete success. Another approach by MedImmune
(partnered with Sanofi) is passive immunity as provided by MEDI-8897 (an RSV monoclonal antibody) and is currently in Phase 2 trials
for preterm infants. A similar Mab from Regeneron (REGN-2222) failed a Phase 3 trial in preterm infants, and its development has
since been discontinued. Additional entities have also entered into early clinical trials including GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Bavarian
Nordic, J&J/Crucell, Ablynx, Immunovaccine, Mucosis, Vaxart and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
an institute under the U.S. National Institutes of Health (“NIAID”).
There are a number
of companies developing and selling vaccines for seasonal influenza employing both traditional (egg-based) and new vaccine technologies
(cell-based). Many seasonal influenza vaccines are currently approved and marketed, and most of these are marketed by major pharmaceutical
companies that have significantly greater financial and technical resources, experience and expertise. Competition in the sale
of seasonal influenza vaccines is intense. Therefore, newly developed and approved products must be differentiated from existing
vaccines in order to have commercial success. In order to show differentiation in the seasonal influenza market, a product may
need to be more efficacious and/or be less expensive and quicker to manufacture. Many of our competitors are working on new products
and new generations of current products, some by adding an adjuvant that is used to increase the immunogenicity of that product,
each of which is intended to be more efficacious than currently marketed products. Another differentiating factor is recombinant
manufacturing, which we believe can be quicker and less-expensive than traditional egg-based manufacturing. Despite the significant
competition and advancing technologies, some of which are similar to our own, we believe that our nanoparticle seasonal influenza
product, NanoFlu™ vaccine, could be as efficacious as, or more so than, current products or products being developed by our
competitors, and that our manufacturing system provides savings in both time and money; however, there can be no guarantee that
our seasonal influenza vaccine will prove to be efficacious or that our manufacturing system will prove to be sufficiently effective
and differentiated to ensure commercial success.
Vaccine candidates
against EBOV have been in development for more than a decade; however, with the recent epidemic in West Africa (now subsided),
focus on viable vaccine candidates has intensified. The WHO has reported two vaccine candidates that are currently being tested
in humans: one by GlaxoSmithKline in collaboration with NIAID, and the other by a collaboration of NewLink Genetics, Merck Vaccines
USA (“Merck”) and the Public Health Agency of Canada. The Merck vaccine is the only one to have completed some human
trials before the epidemic faded, to have had data published, and to now be planning to file for licensure. While these and other
vaccine candidates offer promise, we believe there are accompanying challenges, including: high-dose level requirements; utilization
of glycoprotein from older strains that have a significant number of amino acid changes when compared to the 2014 Makona strain;
difficult storage requirements at temperatures below –60°C; and challenges associated with immunity to the viral vectors,
which could limit their multi-dose vaccine potential. In contrast, we have developed a Phase 1 vaccine candidate that has performed
well with low doses utilizing our Matrix-M adjuvant, was derived from the 2014 Makona strain, appears to be stable at 2–8°C
and appears to provide enhanced immunogenicity as a multi-dose vaccine.
In general, competition
among pharmaceutical products is based in part on product efficacy, safety, reliability, availability, price and patent position.
An important factor is the relative timing of the market introduction of our products and our competitors’ products. Accordingly,
the speed with which we can develop products, complete the clinical trials and approval processes and supply commercial quantities
of the products to the market is an important competitive factor. Our competitive position also may depend upon our ability to
show differentiation with a product that is more efficacious and/or less expensive and quicker to manufacture. Other factors affecting
our competitive position include our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, obtain patent protection or otherwise develop
proprietary products or processes and secure sufficient capital resources for the lengthy period between technological conception
and commercial sale.
Patents and Proprietary Rights
We generally seek patent
protection for our technology and product candidates in the U.S. and abroad. The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical
firms generally is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. Our success will depend, in part, on whether
we can:
|
·
|
obtain patents to protect our own technologies and product candidates;
|
|
·
|
obtain licenses to use the technologies of third-parties, which may be protected by patents;
|
|
·
|
protect our trade secrets and know-how; and
|
|
·
|
operate without infringing the intellectual property and proprietary rights of others.
|
Patent Rights; Licenses.
We have intellectual
property (patents, licenses, know-how) related to our vaccines, manufacturing processes and other technologies. Currently, we have
or have rights to over 250 U.S. patents and corresponding foreign patents and patent applications relating to vaccines and vaccine-related
technologies.
Since 2007, we have
maintained a non-exclusive license arrangement with Wyeth Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc. (Wyeth), to a family of patents
and patent applications covering VLP technology for use in human vaccines in certain fields, with expected patent expiration in
early 2022.
Patents related to
our VLP program include U.S. Patent No. 7,763,450, which covers, in part, the use of influenza gene sequences for high-yield production
of consistent influenza VLP vaccines to protect against current and future seasonal and pandemic strains of influenza viruses.
Corresponding European patent, European Patent No. 1644037 also covers this technology. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,080,255, 8,551,756,
8,506,967 and 8,592,197 are directed to methods of producing VLPs and inducing substantial immunity to an influenza virus infection
by administering VLPs comprising HA and NA proteins, and our M1 protein derived from the avian influenza strain, A/Indonesia/5/05.
Certain claims also encompass similar methods and compositions where the M1 protein is from a different strain of influenza virus
than the influenza HA protein and the influenza NA protein. Related patent protection in Europe is provided by European Patent
No. 2343084, which covers, in part, vaccine compositions containing VLPs that contain M1, HA, and NA proteins. Our VLP patent portfolio
contains many other patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,951,537, 8,992,939, 9,144,607, 9,050,290, 9,180,180, 9,381,239, 9,464,276,
9,474,799, and other patents in multiple ex-U.S. jurisdictions, and we continue to prosecute patents related to this program.
In addition to our
VLP program, we have issued patents and pending applications directed to other programs, including our RSV and rabies programs.
Issued patents directed to various aspects of the RSV program include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,715,692, 9,675,685, 9,731,000, and 9,717,786.
Additional patents in the family include EP237009 in Europe, as well as others throughout the world. Patents related to our rabies
program include 9,724,405 in the U.S. and EP2635257 in Europe. Related patents have been issued in other world markets. In addition
to our focus on vaccine programs, we also pursue patent protection for our Matrix Adjuvant program. Issued U.S. Patent Nos. 7,838,019,
9,205,147, and 8,821,881 provide examples of patents related to our Matrix Adjuvant program.
We continue to prepare,
file, and prosecute patent applications to provide broad and strong protection of our proprietary rights, including next generation
applications focused on our RSV Program, our influenza nanoparticle program, and our adjuvant program.
The Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986 and related statutory guidance encourages the dissemination of science and technology innovation. While our
expired contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority provided
us with the right to retain ownership in our inventions that may have arisen during performance of that contract, with respect
to certain other collaborative research efforts with the U.S. government, certain developments and results that may have commercial
potential are to be freely published, not treated as confidential, and we may be required to negotiate a license to developments
and results in order to commercialize products. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully obtain any such
license at a reasonable cost, or that such development and results will not be made available to our competitors on an exclusive
or non-exclusive basis.
Trade Secrets.
We also rely significantly
on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. It is our policy to require employees, consultants,
contractors, manufacturers, collaborators and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment,
consulting or collaborative relationships with us. We also require confidentiality agreements from any entity that is to receive
confidential information from us. With respect to employees, consultants and contractors, the agreements generally provide that
all inventions made by the individual while rendering services to us shall be assigned to us as our property.
Government Regulations
The development, production
and marketing of biological products, which include the vaccine candidates being developed by Novavax or our collaborators, are
subject to regulation for safety, efficacy and quality by numerous governmental authorities in the U.S. and other countries. As
a U.S. based company, we focus on the U.S. regulatory process and the standards imposed by the FDA, the International Conference
on Harmonisation (“ICH”) and other agencies because we believe, for the most part, meeting U.S. and ICH standards will
allow us to satisfy regulatory agencies in other countries where we intend to do business. We are aware that expectations in some
venues, notably in the European Union, differ to some degree and we are taking proactive steps to address such differences. In
the U.S., the development, manufacturing and marketing of human pharmaceuticals and vaccines are subject to extensive regulation
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and biological products are subject to regulation under provisions of that act
and the Public Health Service Act. The FDA not only assesses the safety and efficacy of these products but it also regulates, among
other things, the testing, manufacture, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising and promotion of such products. The process
of obtaining FDA licensure for a new vaccine is costly and time-consuming.
Vaccine clinical development
follows the same general regulatory pathway as drugs and other biologics. Before applying for FDA licensure to market any new vaccine
candidate, we expect to first submit an investigational new drug application (“IND”) that explains to the FDA, among
other things, the results of preclinical toxicology testing conducted in laboratory animals, the method of manufacture, quality
control tests for release, the stability of the investigational product and what we propose to do for human testing. At this stage,
the FDA decides whether it is reasonably safe to move forward with testing the vaccine candidate in humans. We must then conduct
Phase 1 clinical trials and larger-scale Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that demonstrate the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy
of our vaccine candidate to the satisfaction of the FDA. Once these trials are complete, a Biologics License Application (“BLA”)
can be submitted to the FDA requesting licensure of the vaccine for marketing based on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy.
The FDA will only approve
a BLA if the vaccine is demonstrated to be safe, pure, and potent. During the FDA’s review of a BLA, the proposed manufacturing
facility undergoes a pre-approval inspection during which the FDA examines in detail the production of the vaccine, the manufacturing
facility and the quality documentation related to the vaccine. Vaccine licensure also requires the provision of adequate product
labeling to allow health care providers to understand the vaccine’s proper use, including its potential benefits and risks,
to communicate with patients and parents, and to safely deliver the vaccine to the public. Until a vaccine is given to the general
population, all potential adverse events cannot be anticipated. Thus, the FDA typically requires Phase 4 post-marketing clinical
trials for vaccines after licensure to continue gathering safety, and sometimes effectiveness/efficacy data in the indicated and
additional populations.
In order to ensure
continuing safety, the FDA continues to oversee the production of vaccines even after the vaccine and manufacturing processes are
approved. For example, monitoring of the vaccine and of production activities, including periodic facility inspections, must continue
as long as the manufacturer holds a license for the product. Manufacturers may also be required to submit to the FDA the results
of their own tests for potency, safety and purity for each vaccine lot, if requested by the FDA. They may also be required to submit
samples of each vaccine lot to the FDA for testing.
In addition to obtaining
FDA licensure for each product, each domestic manufacturing establishment must be registered with the FDA, is subject to FDA inspection
and must comply with cGMP regulations. To supply products for use either in the U.S. or outside the U.S., including clinical trials,
U.S. and foreign manufacturing establishments, including third-party facilities, must comply with GMP regulations and are subject
to periodic inspection by the FDA or by corresponding regulatory agencies in their home country.
In 1992, the FDA instituted
regulations that allow accelerated approval of certain products that treat serious or life-threatening illnesses and provide meaningful
therapeutic benefit over existing treatments based on a surrogate endpoint, versus a clinical outcome, which can take many more
years to demonstrate. Surrogate endpoints, generally a laboratory measurement or other physical sign shown to have some correlation
with clinical benefit, can considerably shorten the development time leading up to FDA licensure. The FDA bases its decision on
whether to accept a proposed surrogate endpoint on the scientific support for that endpoint. The company developing the product
is required to conduct further studies to confirm the clinical benefit in Phase 4 confirmatory efficacy trials. We plan to seek
accelerated approval for our seasonal influenza vaccine for older adults, but have not ruled out the potential use of traditional
approval.
In addition to regulatory
approvals that must be obtained in the U.S., an investigational product is also subject to regulatory approval in other countries
in which it is intended to be marketed. No such product can be marketed in a country until the regulatory authorities of that country
have approved an appropriate marketing application. FDA licensure does not assure approval by other regulatory authorities. In
addition, in many countries, the government is involved in the pricing of the product. In such cases, the pricing review period
often begins after market approval is granted.
We are also subject
to regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act,
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other present and potential federal, state or local regulations, including national
and local regulations that govern our facility in Sweden. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various
biological and chemical substances used in, and waste generated by our operations. Our research and development involves the controlled
use of hazardous materials, chemicals and viruses. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of
such materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury
from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of such an accident, we could be held liable for any damages
that result and any such liability could exceed our resources. Additionally, for formulations containing controlled substances,
we are subject to Drug Enforcement Act regulations.
In both domestic and
foreign markets, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the
availability of reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities or programs, private health
insurers (including managed care plans) and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price
and examining the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services. In addition, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement
status of newly approved healthcare products. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate
the cost-effectiveness of our products. Our product candidates may not be considered cost-effective. Adequate third-party reimbursement
may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product
development. Third-party payors may also control access to, or manage utilization of, our products with various utilization management
techniques.
Within the U.S., if
we obtain appropriate approval in the future to market any of our product candidates, those products could potentially be covered
by various government health benefit programs as well as purchased by government agencies. The participation in such programs or
the sale of products to such agencies is subject to regulation. In exchange for coverage, we may be obligated to provide rebates
or offer discounts under government health programs or to government and private purchasers.
The U.S. and state
governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reform delivery of, or payment for, health care, which include
initiatives to reduce the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (“Healthcare Reform Act”) which includes changes
to the coverage and reimbursement of drug products under government health care programs. Under the Trump administration, there
have been ongoing efforts to modify or repeal all or certain provisions of the Healthcare Reform Act, and some modifications have
been implemented. Recently, there has been considerable public and government scrutiny in the U.S. of pharmaceutical pricing and
proposals to address the perceived high cost of pharmaceuticals. There have also been several recent state legislative efforts
to address drug costs, which generally have focused on increasing transparency around drug costs or limiting drug prices or price
increases. Adoption of new legislation at the federal or state level could affect demand for, or pricing of, our product candidates
if approved for sale. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any federal and state reform efforts. There is
no assurance that federal or state health care reform will not adversely affect our future business and financial results.
Within the U.S., we
may be subject to various federal and state laws pertaining to health care “fraud and abuse,” including anti-kickback
laws and false claims laws, for activities related to future sales of any of our product candidates that may in the future receive
regulatory and marketing approval. Anti-kickback laws generally prohibit a pharmaceutical manufacturer from soliciting, offering,
receiving, or paying any remuneration to generate business, including the purchase, prescription or use of a particular drug. Although
the specific provisions of these laws vary, their scope is generally broad and there may not be regulations, guidance or court
decisions that apply the laws to particular industry practices. There is therefore a possibility that our practices might be challenged
under such anti-kickback laws. False claims laws prohibit anyone from knowingly and willingly presenting, or causing to be presented,
any claims for payment for reimbursed drugs or services to third party payors (including Medicare and Medicaid) that are false
or fraudulent.
Laws and regulations
have been enacted by the federal government and various states to regulate the sales and marketing practices of pharmaceutical
manufacturers with marketed products. The laws and regulations generally limit financial interactions between manufacturers and
health care providers and/or require disclosure to the government and public of such interactions. Many of these laws and regulations
contain ambiguous requirements or require administrative guidance for implementation. Given the lack of clarity in laws and their
implementation, any future activities (if we obtain approval and/or reimbursement from federal healthcare programs for our product
candidates) could be subject to challenge.
Manufacturing
Our primary manufacturing
facility is located at our corporate headquarters at 20 Firstfield Road in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The facility has 53,000 square
feet of combined GMP manufacturing and laboratory space. Our Rockville, Maryland facility houses our 10,000 square foot GMP pilot
manufacturing facility that produces early-stage clinical trial material. Novavax AB, located in Uppsala, Sweden, produces our
Matrix adjuvants in an approximately 24,000 square foot facility comprised of GMP manufacturing, laboratory and office space.
Sources of Supply
Most of the raw materials
and other supplies required in our business are generally available from established vendors in quantities adequate to meet our
needs. In some cases, we have only qualified one vendor for certain of our manufacturing components. Prior to the initiation of
commercial production, we plan, where feasible, to qualify multiple vendors of critical raw materials. One key vendor is GE Healthcare
Company (“GEHC”), which supplies disposable components, resins, media and buffers used in our manufacturing process.
GEHC and other vendors that supply our key manufacturing materials have been or will be audited for compliance with GMP standards.
An important component
of our Matrix adjuvant technology is extracted from a species of soap-bark tree (
Quillaja saponaria
) that grows mainly in
Chile, and we have been able to acquire high-quality quillaja extract as needed from our current suppliers.
Business Development
We believe our proprietary
vaccine technology affords us a range of traditional and non-traditional commercialization options that are broader than those
of existing vaccine companies. We strive to create sustainable value by working to obtain non-dilutive funding, similar to our
agreement with BMGF to fund our RSV program, that would allow for:
|
•
|
continued development of our vaccine candidates until
such vaccines can be licensed;
|
|
•
|
retained commercial rights in one or more major markets;
|
|
•
|
product sales revenue; and
|
|
•
|
in certain markets, commercialized products through partners
and other strategic relationships.
|
In addition to our
aforementioned agreement with BMGF, another example of a strategic relationship is our joint venture we established with Cadila.
CPLB is owned 20% by us and 80% by Cadila. It was established in 2009 to develop and manufacture certain vaccine candidates, biogeneric
products and diagnostic products for the territory of India. CPLB operates a manufacturing facility in India for the production
of vaccines and is actively developing a number of vaccine candidates that were genetically engineered by us.
Employees
As of March 9, 2018,
we have 347 full-time employees, of whom 61 hold M.D. or Ph.D. degrees and 100 of whom hold other advanced degrees. Of our total
workforce, 300 are engaged primarily in research, development and manufacturing activities and 47 are engaged primarily in executive,
business development, finance and accounting, legal and administrative functions. None of our U.S. employees are represented by
labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements; 33 of our 34 Swedish employees are covered by typical collective bargaining
agreements. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.
Availability of Information
Our website address
is
www.novavax.com
. We make available, free of charge and through our website, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly
Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”),
and any amendments to any such reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after filed with or furnished to the SEC. Further, a copy of this Annual Report
on Form 10-K is located at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Information on the
operation of the Public Reference Room can be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an Internet site
that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with
the SEC at
www.sec.gov
.
We use our website
(www.novavax.com) as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under
Regulation Fair Disclosure promulgated by the SEC. These disclosures are included on our website (www.novavax.com) in the “Investors”
or “News” sections. Accordingly, investors should monitor these portions of our website (www.novavax.com), in addition
to following our press releases, SEC filings and public conference calls and webcasts.
Also available on our
website is information relating to corporate governance at Novavax and our Board of Directors, including our Code of Business Conduct
and Ethics. We intend to disclose on our website any future amendments to and waivers from this code that apply to our Chief Executive
Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Controller, and persons performing similar functions, as
promptly as practicable, as may be required under applicable SEC and Nasdaq rules.
We webcast our earnings
calls and certain events we participate in or host with members of the investment community on the investor relations section of
our website. Additionally, we provide notifications of news or announcements regarding press and earnings releases as part of the
investor relations section of our website. The contents of our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or any
other report we file with, or furnish to, the SEC.
You should carefully
consider the following risk factors in evaluating our business. A number of risk factors could cause our actual results to differ
materially from those that are indicated by forward-looking statements. Some risks relate principally to our business and the industry
in which we operate. Others relate principally to the securities market and ownership of our common stock. The risks and uncertainties
described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties of which we are unaware, or that we currently
deem immaterial, also may become important factors that affect us. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial
condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. You also should consider the other information included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
We have a history
of losses and our future profitability is uncertain.
Our expenses have exceeded
our revenue since our formation in 1987, and our accumulated deficit at December 31, 2018 was $1.1 billion. Our revenue for the
last three fiscal years was $31.2 million in 2017, $15.4 million in 2016, and $36.3 million in 2015. We may not be successful in
entering into strategic alliances or collaborative arrangements with other companies or government agencies that result in significant
revenue to offset our expenses. Our net losses for the last three fiscal years were $183.8 million in 2017, $280.0 million in 2016,
and $156.9 million in 2015.
Our recent historical
losses have resulted predominantly from research and development expenses for our vaccine candidates, manufacturing-related expenses,
costs related to protection of our intellectual property and for other general operating expenses. Our expenses have exceeded our
revenue since inception, and we believe our expenses will fluctuate over time, and may substantially increase some years, as a
result of continuing research and development efforts to support our vaccine development efforts. In 2016, for example, we experienced
a significant increase in research and development expenses compared to prior years primarily due to additional RSV F Vaccine clinical
trials in older adults and infants via maternal immunization, as well as higher employee-related costs to support development
of our RSV F Vaccine and other potential vaccine candidates.
Although certain
specified costs associated with the development of our RSV F Vaccine for infants via maternal immunization
may be reimbursed under our contract with BMGF, we expect to continue to incur significant operating expenses and anticipate
significant losses over time as we seek to:
|
·
|
conduct clinical trials for RSV
F Vaccine and other potential vaccine candidates;
|
|
·
|
conduct preclinical studies for other
potential vaccine candidates;
|
|
·
|
comply with the FDA’s manufacturing
facility and compliance requirements in anticipation of commercialization;
|
|
·
|
invest in our manufacturing process for
commercial-scale and cost-efficiency; and
|
|
·
|
maintain, expand and protect our intellectual
property portfolio.
|
As a result, we expect
our cumulative operating losses to increase until such time, if ever, that product sales, licensing fees, royalties, milestones,
contract research and other sources generate sufficient revenue to fund our operations. We may never achieve profitability and
may not sustain profitability, if achieved.
We have limited
financial resources and we may not be able to maintain our current level of operations or be able to fund the further development
of our vaccine candidates.
We do not expect
to generate revenue from product sales, licensing fees, royalties, milestones, contract research or other sources in amounts
sufficient to fully fund our operations for the foreseeable future, and therefore, we will therefore use our cash resources,
and expect to require additional funds, to maintain our operations, continue our research and development programs, commence
future preclinical studies and clinical trials, seek regulatory approvals and manufacture and market our products. We will
seek such additional funds through public or private equity or debt financings, collaborative licensing and development
arrangements, non-dilutive government contracts and grants and other sources. While we continue to apply for contracts or
grants from academic institutions, non-profit organizations and governmental entities, we may not be successful. Adequate
additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all. If we cannot raise the additional funds
required for our anticipated operations, we may be required to delay significantly, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or
more of our research or development programs, downsize our general and administrative infrastructure, or seek alternative
measures to avoid insolvency, including arrangements with collaborative partners or others that may require us to relinquish
rights to certain of our technologies or vaccine candidates. If we raise additional funds through future offerings of shares
of our common stock or other securities, such offerings would cause dilution of current stockholders’
percentage ownership in the Company, which could be substantial. Future offerings also could have a material and adverse
effect on the price of our common stock.
Economic uncertainty
may adversely affect our access to capital, cost of capital and ability to execute our business plan as scheduled.
Generally, worldwide
economic conditions remain uncertain. Access to capital markets is critical to our ability to operate. Traditionally, biotechnology
companies have funded their research and development expenditures through raising capital in the equity markets. Declines and uncertainties
in these markets in the past have severely restricted raising new capital and have affected companies’ ability to continue
to expand or fund existing research and development efforts. We require significant capital for research and development for our
vaccine candidates and clinical trials. The general economic and capital market conditions, both in the U.S. and worldwide, have
been volatile in the past and at times have adversely affected our access to capital and increased the cost of capital. There is
no certainty that the capital and credit markets will be available to raise additional capital on favorable terms. If economic
conditions become worse, our future cost of equity or debt capital and access to the capital markets could be adversely affected.
In addition, if we are unable to access the capital markets on favorable terms, our ability to execute our business plan as scheduled
would be compromised. Moreover, we rely and intend to rely on third-parties, including clinical research organizations and other
important vendors and consultants. Global economic conditions may result in a disruption or delay in the performance of our third-party
contractors and suppliers. If such third-parties are unable to adequately satisfy their contractual commitments to us in a timely
manner, our business could be adversely affected.
Even with the
Grant Agreement with BMGF, we may not be able to fully fund our RSV F Vaccine for infants via maternal immunization.
The Grant Agreement
reimburses a portion of specified expenses associated with the development of our RSV F Vaccine for infants via maternal immunization,
and additional activities likely will be needed and BMGF may not reimburse us for any portion of these activities.
The Grant Agreement
with BMGF does not assure success in future clinical trials of our RSV F Vaccine for infants via maternal immunization or that
the vaccine candidate will be licensed by the FDA.
The Grant Agreement
reimburses a portion of specified expenses associated with the development of our RSV F Vaccine for infants via maternal immunization,
but we remain fully responsible for conducting these development activities. The Grant Agreement does not guarantee that any of
these activities will be successful. Our inability to succeed with key clinical or development activities could jeopardize our
ability to obtain FDA licensure to sell this vaccine.
Collaborations
and contracts of our wholly owned subsidiary Novavax AB, with regional partners, such as Cadila and BMGF, as well as with international
providers, expose us to additional risks associated with doing business outside the U.S.
Swedish-based Novavax
AB is a wholly owned subsidiary of Novavax, Inc. We also have formed a joint venture with Cadila in India, have established a clinical
development agreement with BMGF and have entered into other agreements and arrangements with companies in other countries. We plan
to continue to enter into collaborations or partnerships with companies, non-profit organizations and local governments in various
parts of the world. Risks of conducting business outside the U.S. include negative consequences of:
|
·
|
the costs associated with seeking to comply
with multiple regulatory requirements that govern our ability to develop, manufacture and sell products in local markets;
|
|
·
|
failure to comply with anti-bribery laws
such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar anti-bribery laws in other jurisdictions;
|
|
·
|
existing, new or changes in interpretations
of existing trade protections measures, including tariffs, and import and export licensing requirements;
|
|
·
|
difficulties in and costs of staffing,
managing and operating our international operations;
|
|
·
|
changes in environmental, health and safety
laws;
|
|
·
|
fluctuations in foreign currency exchange
rates;
|
|
·
|
new, changes in or changes in interpretations
of tax laws;
|
|
·
|
political instability and actual or anticipated
military or potential conflicts;
|
|
·
|
economic instability, inflation, recession
and interest rate fluctuations;
|
|
·
|
minimal or diminished protection of intellectual
property in many jurisdictions; and
|
|
·
|
possible nationalization and expropriation.
|
These risks, individually
or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and cash
flows.
Current or future
regional relationships may hinder our ability to engage in larger transactions.
We have entered into
regional collaborations to develop our vaccine candidates in certain parts of the world, and we may enter into additional regional
collaborations. Our relationships with Cadila and BMGF are examples of these regional relationships. These relationships often
involve the licensing of our technology to our partner or entering into a distribution agreement, frequently on an exclusive basis.
Generally, exclusive agreements are restricted to certain territories. Because we have entered into exclusive license and distribution
agreements, larger companies may not be interested, or able, to enter into collaborations with us on a worldwide-scale. Also, these
regional relationships may make us an unattractive target for an acquisition.
We are a biotechnology
company and face significant risk in developing, manufacturing and commercializing our products.
We focus our research
and development activities on vaccines, an area in which we believe we have particular strengths and a technology that appears
promising. The outcome of any research and development program is highly uncertain. Only a small fraction of biopharmaceutical
development programs ultimately result in commercial products or even product candidates and a number of events could delay our
development efforts and negatively impact our ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and to manufacture, market and sell, a
vaccine. Vaccine candidates that initially appear promising often fail to yield successful products. In many cases, preclinical
studies or clinical trials will show that a product candidate is not efficacious or that it raises safety concerns or has other
side effects that outweigh its intended benefit. Success in preclinical or early clinical trials may not translate into success
in large-scale clinical trials. Further, success in clinical trials often leads to increased investment, accelerating cumulative
losses. Even if clinical trial results appear positive, regulatory approval may not be obtained if the FDA does not agree with
our interpretation of the results, and we may face challenges when scaling-up the production process to commercial levels. Even
after a product is approved and launched, general usage or post-marketing clinical trials may identify safety or other previously
unknown problems with the product, which may result in regulatory approvals being suspended, limited to narrow indications or revoked,
which may otherwise prevent successful commercialization. Intense competition in the vaccine industry could also limit the successful
commercialization of any products for which we receive commercial approval.
Many of our competitors
have significantly greater resources and experience, which may negatively impact our commercial opportunities and those of our
current and future licensees.
The biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries are subject to intense competition and rapid and significant technological change. We have many potential
competitors, including major pharmaceutical companies, specialized biotechnology firms, academic institutions, government agencies
and private and public research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial and technical resources,
experience and expertise in:
|
·
|
research and development;
|
|
·
|
designing and implementing clinical trials;
|
|
·
|
regulatory processes and approvals;
|
|
·
|
production and manufacturing; and
|
|
·
|
sales and marketing of approved products.
|
Principal competitive
factors in our industry include:
|
·
|
the quality and breadth of an organization’s
technology;
|
|
·
|
management of the organization and the
execution of the organization’s strategy;
|
|
·
|
the skill and experience of an organization’s
employees and its ability to recruit and retain skilled and experienced employees;
|
|
·
|
an organization’s intellectual property
portfolio;
|
|
·
|
the range of capabilities, from target
identification and validation to drug discovery and development to manufacturing and marketing; and
|
|
·
|
the availability of substantial capital
resources to fund discovery, development and commercialization activities.
|
Large and established
companies, such as Merck & Co., Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, CSL Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur, SA, Pfizer Inc. and MedImmune, among others,
compete in the vaccine market. In particular, these companies have greater experience and expertise in securing government contracts
and grants to support their research and development efforts, conducting testing and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals
to market products, manufacturing such products on a broad scale and marketing approved products.
We are also aware that
there are multiple companies with active RSV vaccine programs at various stages of development. Thus, while there is no RSV vaccine
currently on the market, there is likely to be significant and consistent competition as these active programs mature. Different
RSV vaccines may work better for different segments of the population, so it may be difficult for a single RSV vaccine manufacturer
to provide vaccines that are marketable to multiple population segments. Geographic markets are also likely to vary significantly,
which may make it difficult to market a single RSV vaccine worldwide. Even if a manufacturer brings an RSV vaccine to license,
it is likely that competitors will continue to work on new products that could be more efficacious and/or less expensive. Our RSV
vaccine candidate may not be as far along in development as other active RSV vaccine programs about which we are not aware, nor
as efficacious as products under development by competing companies.
Many seasonal
influenza vaccines are currently approved and marketed. Competition in the sale of these seasonal influenza vaccines is
intense. Therefore, newly developed and approved products must be differentiated from existing vaccines in order to have
commercial success. In order to show differentiation in the seasonal influenza market, a product may need to be more
efficacious, particularly in older adults, and/or be less expensive and quicker to manufacture. Many of our competitors are
working on new products and new generations of current products, intended to be more efficacious than those currently
marketed. Our nanoparticle seasonal influenza vaccine candidate may not prove to be more efficacious than current products or
products under development by our competitors. Further, our manufacturing system may not provide enough savings of time or
money to provide the required differentiation for commercial success.
We believe that there
are at least two EBOV vaccine candidates currently being tested in late stage clinical trials: one by GlaxoSmithKline in collaboration
with the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the other by a collaboration of NewLink Genetics, Merck
Vaccines USA and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Additional vaccine candidates also are being tested, although in earlier stage
clinical trials. Vaccine candidates against EBOV have been in development for more than a decade by large pharmaceutical companies,
smaller biotech companies, government agencies and academic labs worldwide, and with the high visibility of the recent West Africa
epidemic, development activities are likely to continue and potentially increase.
Regardless of the
disease, smaller or early-stage companies and research institutions also may prove to be significant competitors,
particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established pharmaceutical companies. As these companies
develop their technologies, they may develop proprietary positions, which may prevent or limit our product development and
commercialization efforts. We will also face competition from these parties in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific
and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and participant registration for clinical trials and in
acquiring and in-licensing technologies and products complementary to our programs or potentially advantageous to our
business. If any of our competitors succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities for their
products sooner than we do or for products that are more effective or less costly than ours, our commercial opportunity could
be significantly reduced.
In order to effectively
compete, we will have to make substantial investments in development, testing, manufacturing and sales and marketing or partner
with one or more established companies. We may not be successful in gaining significant market share for any vaccine. Our technologies
and vaccines also may be rendered obsolete or non-competitive as a result of products introduced by our competitors to the marketplace
more rapidly and at a lower cost.
If we are unable
to attract or retain key management or other personnel, our business, operating results and financial condition could be materially
adversely affected.
We depend on our senior
executive officers, as well as key scientific and other personnel. The loss of these individuals could harm our business and significantly
delay or prevent the achievement of research, development or business objectives. Turnover in key executive positions resulting
in lack of management continuity and long-term history with our Company could result in operational and administrative inefficiencies
and added costs.
We may not be able
to attract qualified individuals for key positions on terms acceptable to us. Competition for qualified employees is intense among
pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and the loss of qualified employees, or an inability to attract, retain and motivate
additional highly skilled employees could hinder our ability to complete clinical trials successfully and develop marketable products.
We also rely from time
to time on outside advisors who assist us in formulating our research and development and clinical strategy. We may not be able
to attract and retain these individuals on acceptable terms, which could delay our development efforts.
We may have product
liability exposure.
The administration
of drugs or vaccines to humans, whether in clinical trials or after marketing approval, can result in product liability claims.
We maintain product liability insurance coverage in the total amount of $20 million aggregate for all claims arising from the use
of products in clinical trials prior to FDA approval. Coverage is relatively expensive, and the market pricing fluctuates significantly.
Therefore, we may not be able to maintain insurance at a reasonable cost. We may not be able to maintain our existing insurance
coverage or obtain coverage for the use of our other products in the future. This insurance coverage and our resources may not
be sufficient to satisfy all liabilities that result from product liability claims. A successful claim may prevent us from obtaining
adequate product liability insurance in the future on commercially desirable items, if at all. Even if a claim is not successful,
defending such a claim would be time-consuming and expensive, may damage our reputation in the marketplace and would likely divert
management’s attention.
Regardless of merit
or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:
|
·
|
decreased demand for our products;
|
|
·
|
impairment of our business reputation;
|
|
·
|
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
|
|
·
|
costs of related litigation;
|
|
·
|
substantial monetary awards to
participant or other claimants;
|
|
·
|
inability to commercialize our vaccine
candidates.
|
We may not be
able to win government, academic institution or non-profit contracts or grants.
From time to time,
we may apply for contracts or grants from government agencies, academic institutions, and non-profit organizations. Such contracts or
grants can be highly attractive because they provide capital to fund the ongoing development of our technologies and vaccine candidates
without diluting our stockholders. However, there is often significant competition for these contracts or grants. Entities offering
contracts or grants may have requirements to apply for or to otherwise be eligible to receive certain contracts or grants that
our competitors may be able to satisfy that we cannot. In addition, such entities may make arbitrary decisions as to whether to
offer contracts or make grants, to whom the contracts or grants will be awarded and the size of the contracts or grants to each
awardee. Even if we are able to satisfy the award requirements, we may not be a successful awardee. Therefore, we may not be able
to win any contracts or grants in a timely manner, if at all.
Raising additional
capital by issuing securities or through collaboration and licensing arrangements may cause dilution to existing stockholders or
require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or vaccine candidates.
If we are unable to
partner with a third-party to advance the development of one or more of our vaccine candidates, we will need to raise money through
additional debt or equity financings. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders
will experience immediate dilution, which may be significant. There is also a risk that such equity issuances may cause an ownership
change under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and similar state provisions, thus limiting our ability to use our
net operating loss carryforwards and credits. To the extent that we raise additional capital through licensing arrangements or
arrangements with collaborative partners, we may be required to relinquish, on terms that may not be favorable to us, rights to
some of our technologies or vaccine candidates that we would otherwise seek to develop or commercialize ourselves. In addition,
current economic conditions may also negatively affect the desire or ability of potential collaborators to enter into transactions
with us. They may also have to delay or cancel research and development projects or reduce their overall budgets.
Our business
may be adversely affected if we do not successfully execute our business development initiatives.
We anticipate growing
through both internal development projects, as well as external opportunities, which include the acquisition, partnering and in-licensing
of products, technologies and companies or the entry into strategic alliances and collaborations. The availability of high quality
opportunities is limited, and we may fail to identify candidates that we and our stockholders consider suitable or complete transactions
on terms that prove advantageous. In order to pursue such opportunities, we may require significant additional financing, which
may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all. Even if we are able to successfully identify and complete acquisitions,
like our business combination with Novavax AB, we may not be able to integrate the assets or take full advantage of the opportunities
and, consequently, may not realize the benefits that we expect.
To effectively manage
our current and future potential growth, we will need to continue to enhance our operational, financial and management processes
and to effectively expand, train and manage our employee base. Supporting our growth initiatives will require significant expenditures
and management resources, including investments in research and development, manufacturing and other areas of our business. If
we do not successfully manage our growth and do not successfully execute our growth initiatives, then our business and financial
results may be adversely impacted, and we may incur asset impairment or restructuring charges.
Litigation could
have a material adverse impact on our results of operation and financial condition.
In addition to intellectual
property litigation, from time to time, we may be subject to other litigation. Regardless of the merits of any claims that may
be brought against us, litigation could result in a diversion of management’s attention and resources and we may be required
to incur significant expenses defending against these claims. If we are unable to prevail in litigation, we could incur substantial
liabilities. Where we can make a reasonable estimate of the liability relating to pending litigation and determine that it is probable,
we record a related liability. As additional information becomes available, we assess the potential liability and revise estimates
as appropriate. However, because of uncertainties relating to litigation, the amount of our estimates could be wrong.
Security breaches
and other disruptions could compromise our information and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation
to suffer.
In the ordinary
course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business
information and data about our clinical participants, suppliers, and business partners and personally identifiable
information. The secure maintenance of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. Some of this
information could be an attractive target of criminal attack by malicious third parties with a wide range of motives and
expertise, including organized criminal groups, “hactivists,” patient groups, disgruntled current or former
employees and others. Hacker attacks are of ever-increasing levels of sophistication, and despite our security measures, our
information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to such attacks or may be breached due to employee error or
malfeasance. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly
disclosed, lost or stolen. Furthermore, if our systems become compromised, we may not promptly discover the intrusion. Like
other companies in our industry, we have experienced attacks to our data and systems, including malware and computer viruses.
Attacks could have a material impact on our business, operations or financial results. Any access, disclosure or other loss
of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal
information, disrupt our operations, and damage our reputation, which could adversely affect our business.
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT RISKS
Because our vaccine
product development efforts depend on new and rapidly evolving technologies, we cannot be certain that our efforts will be successful.
Our vaccine development
efforts depend on new, rapidly evolving technologies and on the marketability and profitability of our products. Our development
efforts and, if those are successful, commercialization of our vaccines could fail for a variety of reasons, and include the possibility
that:
|
·
|
our recombinant nanoparticle vaccine technologies,
any or all of the products based on such technologies or our proprietary manufacturing process will be ineffective or unsafe, or
otherwise fail to receive necessary regulatory clearances or commercial viability;
|
|
·
|
we are unable to scale-up our manufacturing
capabilities in a cost-effective manner;
|
|
·
|
the products, if safe and effective, will
be difficult to manufacture on a large-scale or uneconomical to market;
|
|
·
|
our manufacturing facility will fail to
continue to pass regulatory inspections;
|
|
·
|
proprietary rights of third-parties will
prevent us or our collaborators from exploiting technologies, and manufacturing or marketing products; and
|
|
·
|
third-party competitors will gain greater
market share due to superior products or marketing capabilities.
|
We have not completed
the development of vaccine products and we may not succeed in obtaining the FDA licensure necessary to sell such vaccine products.
The development, manufacture
and marketing of our pharmaceutical and biological products are subject to government regulation in the U.S. and other countries,
including the European Medicines Agency and the Swedish Medical Products Agency with respect to our adjuvant product being developed
in Sweden. In the U.S. and most foreign countries, we must complete rigorous preclinical testing and extensive clinical trials
that demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a product in order to apply for regulatory approval to market the product. None of
our vaccine candidates have yet gained regulatory approval in the U.S. or elsewhere. We also have vaccine candidates in clinical
trials and preclinical laboratory or animal studies.
The steps generally
required by the FDA before our proposed investigational products may be marketed in the U.S. include:
|
·
|
performance of preclinical (animal and
laboratory) tests;
|
|
·
|
submissions to the FDA of an IND, which
must become effective before clinical trials may commence;
|
|
·
|
performance of adequate and well controlled
clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product in the intended target population;
|
|
·
|
performance of a consistent and reproducible
manufacturing process intended for commercial use, including appropriate manufacturing data and regulatory inspections;
|
|
·
|
submission to the FDA of a BLA or a NDA;
and
|
|
·
|
FDA approval of the BLA or NDA before
any commercial sale or shipment of the product.
|
The processes are expensive
and can take many years to complete, and we may not be able to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our vaccine candidates to
the satisfaction of regulatory authorities. The start of clinical trials can be delayed or take longer than anticipated for many
and varied reasons, many of which are out of our control. Safety concerns may emerge that could lengthen the ongoing clinical trials
or require additional clinical trials to be conducted. Promising results in early clinical trials may not be replicated in subsequent
clinical trials. Regulatory authorities may also require additional testing, and we may be required to demonstrate that our proposed
products represent an improved form of treatment over existing therapies, which we may be unable to do without conducting further
clinical trials. Moreover, if the FDA or a foreign regulatory body grants regulatory approval of a product, the approval may be
limited to specific indications or limited with respect to its distribution. Expanded or additional indications for approved products
may not be approved, which could limit our revenue. Foreign regulatory authorities may apply similar limitations or may refuse
to grant any approval. Consequently, even if we believe that preclinical and clinical data are sufficient to support regulatory
approval for our vaccine candidates, the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities may not ultimately grant approval for commercial
sale in any jurisdiction. If our vaccine candidates are not approved, our ability to generate revenue will be limited and our business
will be adversely affected.
If we are unable
to manufacture our vaccines in sufficient quantities, at sufficient yields or are unable to obtain regulatory approvals for a manufacturing
facility for our vaccines, we may experience delays in product development, clinical trials, regulatory approval and commercial
distribution.
Completion of our clinical
trials and commercialization of our vaccine candidates require access to, or development of, facilities to manufacture our vaccine
candidates at sufficient yields and at commercial-scale. We have limited experience manufacturing any of our vaccine candidates
in the volumes that will be necessary to support large-scale clinical trials or commercial sales. Efforts to establish these capabilities
may not meet initial expectations as to scheduling, scale-up, reproducibility, yield, purity, cost, potency or quality.
Manufacturing our vaccine
candidates involves a complicated process with which we have limited experience. If we are unable to manufacture our vaccine candidates
in clinical quantities or, when necessary, in commercial quantities and at sufficient yields, then we must rely on third-parties.
Other third-party manufacturers must also receive FDA approval before they can produce clinical material or commercial products.
Our vaccines may be in competition with other products for access to these facilities and may be subject to delays in manufacture
if third-parties give other products greater priority. We may not be able to enter into any necessary third-party manufacturing
arrangements on acceptable terms, or on a timely basis. In addition, we have to enter into technical transfer agreements and share
our know-how with the third-party manufacturers, which can be time-consuming and may result in delays.
Like influenza, a licensed
RSV vaccine would likely be seasonal in nature. If a seasonal vaccine is not available early enough in the season, we would likely
have difficulty selling that vaccine. For these reasons, any delay in the delivery of a seasonal vaccine could result in lower
sales volumes, lower sale prices, or no sales. Strains of the seasonal influenza change annually, which means that inventory of
seasonal vaccine cannot be sold during a subsequent influenza season. We believe that while RSV strains may also change annually,
our RSV F Vaccine is directed at highly-conserved epitopes that are unlikely to change annually, although that has not yet been
definitively demonstrated. Any delay in the manufacture of our vaccines could adversely affect our ability to sell the vaccines.
Our reliance on contract
manufacturers may adversely affect our operations or result in unforeseen delays or other problems beyond our control. Because
of contractual restraints and the limited number of third-party manufacturers with the expertise, required regulatory approvals
and facilities to manufacture our bulk vaccines on a commercial-scale, replacement of a manufacturer may be expensive and time-consuming
and may cause interruptions in the production of our vaccine. A third-party manufacturer may also encounter difficulties in production.
These problems may include:
|
·
|
difficulties with production costs, scale
up and yields;
|
|
·
|
availability of raw materials and supplies;
|
|
·
|
quality control and assurance;
|
|
·
|
shortages of qualified personnel;
|
|
·
|
compliance with strictly enforced federal,
state and foreign regulations that vary in each country where products might be sold; and
|
|
·
|
lack of capital funding.
|
As a result, any delay
or interruption could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We must identify
vaccines for development with our technologies and establish successful third-party relationships.
The near and long-term
viability of our vaccine candidates will depend in part on our ability to successfully establish new strategic collaborations with
pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, non-profit organizations and government agencies. Establishing strategic collaborations
and obtaining government funding is difficult and time-consuming. Potential collaborators may reject collaborations based upon
their assessment of our financial, regulatory or intellectual property position or based on their internal pipeline; government
agencies may reject contract or grant applications based on their assessment of public need, the public interest, our products’
ability to address these areas, or other reasons beyond our expectations or control. If we fail to establish a sufficient number
of collaborations or government relationships on acceptable terms, we may not be able to commercialize our vaccine candidates or
generate sufficient revenue to fund further research and development efforts.
Even if we establish
new collaborations or obtain government funding, these relationships may never result in the successful development or commercialization
of any vaccine candidates for several reasons, including the fact that:
|
·
|
we may not have the ability to control
the activities of our partners and cannot provide assurance that they will fulfill their obligations to us, including with respect
to the license, development and commercialization of vaccine candidates, in a timely manner or at all;
|
|
·
|
such partners may not devote sufficient
resources to our vaccine candidates or properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights;
|
|
·
|
any failure on the part of our partners
to perform or satisfy their obligations to us could lead to delays in the development or commercialization of our vaccine candidates
and affect our ability to realize product revenue; and
|
|
·
|
disagreements, including disputes over
the ownership of technology developed with such collaborators, could result in litigation, which would be time consuming and expensive,
and may delay or terminate research and development efforts, regulatory approvals and commercialization activities.
|
Our collaborators will
be subject to the same regulatory approval of their manufacturing facility and process as us. Before we could begin commercial
manufacturing of any of our vaccine candidates, we and our collaborators must pass a pre-approval inspection before FDA approval
and comply with the FDA’s GMP regulations. If our collaborators fail to comply with these requirements, our vaccine candidates
would not be approved. If our collaborators fail to comply with these requirements after approval, we could be subject to possible
regulatory action and may be limited in the jurisdictions in which we are permitted to sell our products.
If we or our collaborators
fail to maintain our existing agreements or in the event we fail to establish agreements as necessary, we could be required to
undertake research, development, manufacturing and commercialization activities solely at our own expense. These activities would
significantly increase our capital requirements and, given our lack of sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, significantly
delay the commercialization of our vaccine candidates.
Because we depend
on third-parties to conduct some of our laboratory testing, clinical trials, and manufacturing, we may encounter delays in or lose
some control over our efforts to develop products.
We are dependent on
third-party research organizations to conduct some of our laboratory testing, clinical trials and manufacturing activities. If
we are unable to obtain any necessary services on acceptable terms, we may not complete our product development efforts in a timely
manner. We may lose some control over these activities and become too dependent upon these parties. These third-parties may not
complete testing or manufacturing activities on schedule, within budget, or when we request. We may not be able to secure and maintain
suitable research organizations to conduct our laboratory testing, clinical trials and manufacturing activities. We have not manufactured
any of our vaccine candidates at a commercial level and may need to identify additional third-party manufacturers to scale-up and
manufacture our products.
We are responsible
for confirming that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its general investigational plan and protocol.
Moreover, the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies require us to comply with regulations and standards, commonly referred to as
good clinical practices, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported
results are credible and accurate and that the clinical trial participants are adequately protected. The FDA and foreign regulatory
agencies also require us to comply with good manufacturing practices. Our reliance on third-parties does not relieve us of these
responsibilities and requirements. These third-parties may not successfully carry out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations
or meet expected deadlines. In addition, these third-parties may need to be replaced or the quality or accuracy of the data they
obtain may be compromised or the product they manufacture may be contaminated due to the failure to adhere to our clinical and
manufacturing protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons. In any such event, our preclinical development activities
or clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of,
or commercially manufacture, our vaccine candidates.
Even if licensed
to market, our vaccine products may not be initially or ever profitable.
Whether Novavax makes
a profit from the sale of its vaccine products is dependent on a number of variables, including the costs we incur manufacturing,
testing and releasing, packaging and shipping such vaccine product. The Grant Agreement with BMGF necessitates that we commit to
a specific amount of sales in certain specified middle and lower income countries, which may impact our ability to make profits.
In addition, we have not yet determined pricing for our vaccine products, which is a complicated undertaking that necessitates
both regulatory agency and payor support. We cannot predict when, if at all, our approved vaccine products will be profitable to
the Company.
Our collaborations
may not be profitable.
We formed CPLB with
Cadila in India, but we cannot predict when, if at all, this relationship will lead to additional approved products, sales, or
otherwise provide revenue to the Company or become profitable.
We have limited
marketing capabilities, and if we are unable to enter into collaborations with marketing partners or develop our own sales and
marketing capability, we may not be successful in commercializing any approved products.
Although we have initiated
preliminary activities in anticipation of commercialization of our vaccine candidates, we currently have no dedicated sales, marketing
or distribution capabilities. As a result, we will depend on collaborations with third-parties that have established distribution
systems and sales forces. To the extent that we enter into co-promotion or other licensing arrangements, our revenue will depend
upon the efforts of third-parties, over which we may have little or no control. If we are unable to reach and maintain agreements
with one or more pharmaceutical companies or collaborators, we may be required to market our products directly. Developing a marketing
and sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay a product launch. We may not be able to attract and retain qualified
sales personnel or otherwise develop this capability.
Our vaccine candidates
may never achieve market acceptance even if we obtain regulatory approvals.
Even if we receive
regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our vaccine candidates, the commercial success of these vaccine candidates will
depend on, among other things, their acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payers, such as health insurance companies
and other members of the medical community, as a vaccine and cost-effective alternative to competing products. If our vaccine candidates
fail to gain market acceptance, we may be unable to earn sufficient revenue to continue our business. Market acceptance of, and
demand for, any product that we may develop and commercialize will depend on many factors, including:
|
·
|
our ability to provide acceptable evidence
of safety and efficacy;
|
|
·
|
the prevalence and severity of adverse
side effects;
|
|
·
|
whether our vaccines are differentiated
from other vaccines;
|
|
·
|
availability, relative cost and relative
efficacy of alternative and competing treatments;
|
|
·
|
the effectiveness of our marketing and
distribution strategy;
|
|
·
|
publicity concerning our products or competing
products and treatments; and
|
|
·
|
our ability to obtain sufficient third
party insurance coverage or reimbursement.
|
Unlike RSV, where there
is no current vaccine available, there are significant challenges to market seasonal influenza vaccines. For a seasonal vaccine
to be accepted in the market, it must demonstrate differentiation from other seasonal vaccines that are currently approved and
marketed. This can mean that the vaccine is more effective in certain populations, such as in older adults, or cheaper and quicker
to produce. There are no assurances that our influenza vaccine can be differentiated from other influenza vaccines.
If our vaccine candidates
do not become widely accepted by physicians, patients, third-party payers and other members of the medical community, our business,
financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
We may not be
able to secure sufficient supplies of a key component of our adjuvant technology.
Because an important
component of our adjuvant technology is extracted from a species of soap-bark tree (
Quillaja saponaria
) grown in Chile,
we need long term access to quillaja extract with a consistent and sufficiently high quality. We need a secure supply of raw material,
as well as back-up suppliers, or our adjuvant products may be delayed.
If reforms in
the health care industry make reimbursement for our potential products less likely, the market for our potential products will
be reduced, and we could lose potential sources of revenue.
Our success may depend,
in part, on the extent to which reimbursement for the costs of vaccines will be available from third-party payers, such as government
health administration authorities, private health insurers (including managed care plans), and other organizations. Over the past
decade, the cost of health care has risen significantly, and there have been numerous proposals by legislators, regulators and
third-party health care payers to curb these costs. Some of these proposals have involved limitations on the amount of reimbursement
for certain products. Similar federal or state health care legislation may be adopted in the future and any products that we or
our collaborators seek to commercialize may not be considered cost-effective. Adequate third-party insurance coverage may not be
available for us to establish and maintain price levels that are sufficient for realization of an appropriate return on our investment
in product development. Moreover, the existence or threat of cost control measures could cause our corporate collaborators to be
less willing or able to pursue research and development programs related to our vaccine candidates.
REGULATORY RISKS
We may fail to
obtain regulatory approval for our products on a timely basis or comply with our continuing regulatory obligations after approval
is obtained.
Delays in obtaining
regulatory approval can be extremely costly in terms of lost sales opportunities, loss of any potential marketing advantage of
being early to market and increased clinical trial costs. The speed with which we begin and complete our preclinical studies necessary
to begin clinical trials, clinical trials and our applications for marketing approval will depend on several factors, including
the following:
|
·
|
our ability to manufacture or obtain sufficient
quantities of materials for use in necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials;
|
|
·
|
prior regulatory agency review and approval;
|
|
·
|
approval of the protocol and the informed
consent form by the review board of the institution conducting the clinical trial;
|
|
·
|
the rate of participant
enrollment and retention, which is a function of many factors, including the size of the participant population, the
proximity of participants to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial and the nature of the
protocol;
|
|
·
|
negative test results or side effects
experienced by clinical trial participants;
|
|
·
|
analysis of data obtained from preclinical
and clinical activities, which are susceptible to varying interpretations and which interpretations could delay, limit or prevent
further studies or regulatory approval;
|
|
·
|
the availability of skilled and experienced
staff to conduct and monitor clinical trials and to prepare the appropriate regulatory applications; and
|
|
·
|
changes in the policies of regulatory
authorities for drug or vaccine approval during the period of product development.
|
We have limited experience
in conducting and managing the preclinical studies and clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory marketing approvals. We may
not be permitted to continue or commence additional clinical trials. We also face the risk that the results of our clinical trials
may be inconsistent with the results obtained in preclinical studies or clinical trials of similar products or that the results
obtained in later phases of clinical trials may be inconsistent with those obtained in earlier phases. A number of companies in
the biotechnology and product development industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after experiencing
promising results in early animal and human testing.
Regulatory agencies
may require us or our collaborators to delay, restrict or discontinue clinical trials on various grounds, including a finding that
the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. In addition, we or our collaborators may be unable to
submit applications to regulatory agencies within the time frame we currently expect. Once submitted, applications must be approved
by various regulatory agencies before we or our collaborators can commercialize the product described in the application. All statutes
and regulations governing the conduct of clinical trials are subject to change in the future, which could affect the cost of such
clinical trials. Any unanticipated costs or delays in our clinical trials could delay our ability to generate revenue and harm
our financial condition and results of operations.
Failure to obtain
regulatory approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent us from marketing our products internationally.
We intend to have
our vaccine candidates marketed outside the U.S. In furtherance of this objective, we have entered into relationships with
Cadila in India. In order to market our products in the European Union, India, Asia and many other non-U.S. jurisdictions, we
must obtain separate regulatory approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval
procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing and data review. The time required to obtain foreign
regulatory approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. The foreign regulatory approval process may include
all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if
at all. Approval by a regulatory agency, such as the FDA, does not ensure approval by any other regulatory agencies
in other foreign countries. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may
have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in other jurisdictions, including approval by the FDA. The failure
to obtain regulatory approval in foreign jurisdictions could harm our business.
Even if regulatory
approval is received for our vaccine candidates, the later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, manufacturer
or facility may result in restrictions, including withdrawal of the product from the market.
Even if a product gains
regulatory approval, such approval is likely to limit the indicated uses for which it may be marketed, and the product and the
manufacturer of the product will be subject to continuing regulatory review, including adverse event reporting requirements and
the FDA’s general prohibition against promoting products for unapproved uses. Failure to comply with any post-approval requirements
can, among other things, result in warning letters, product seizures, recalls, substantial fines, injunctions, suspensions or revocations
of marketing licenses, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions. Any of these enforcement actions, any unanticipated changes
in existing regulatory requirements or the adoption of new requirements, or any safety issues that arise with any approved products,
could adversely affect our ability to market products and generate revenue and thus adversely affect our ability to continue our
business.
We also may be restricted
or prohibited from marketing or manufacturing a product, even after obtaining product approval, if previously unknown problems
with the product or its manufacture are subsequently discovered and we cannot provide assurance that newly discovered or developed
safety issues will not arise following any regulatory approval. With the use of any vaccine by a wide patient population, serious
adverse events may occur from time to time that initially do not appear to relate to the vaccine itself, and only if the specific
event occurs with some regularity over a period of time does the vaccine become suspect as having a causal relationship to the
adverse event. Any safety issues could cause us to suspend or cease marketing of our approved products, possibly subject us to
substantial liabilities, and adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and our financial condition.
Because we are
subject to environmental, health and safety laws, we may be unable to conduct our business in the most advantageous manner.
We are subject to various
laws and regulations relating to safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing practices, the experimental use of animals,
emissions and wastewater discharges, and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances used in connection
with our research, including infectious disease agents. We also cannot accurately predict the extent of regulations that might
result from any future legislative or administrative action. Any of these laws or regulations could cause us to incur additional
expense or restrict our operations.
Our facilities in Maryland
are subject to various local, state and federal laws and regulations relating to safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing
practices, the experimental use of animals and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances, including
chemicals, microorganisms and various hazardous compounds used in connection with our research and development activities. In the
U.S., these laws include the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Toxic Test Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. Similar national and local regulations govern our facility in Sweden. We cannot eliminate the risk of accidental
contamination or discharge or injury from these materials. Federal, state, and local laws and regulations govern the use, manufacture,
storage, handling and disposal of these materials. We could be subject to civil damages in the event of an improper or unauthorized
release of, or exposure of individuals to, these hazardous materials. In addition, claimants may sue us for injury or contamination
that results from our use or the use by third-parties of these materials, and our liability may exceed our total assets. Compliance
with environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research,
development or production efforts.
Although we have general
liability insurance, these policies contain exclusions from insurance against claims arising from pollution from chemicals or pollution
from conditions arising from our operations. Our collaborators are working with these types of hazardous materials in connection
with our collaborations. In the event of a lawsuit or investigation, we could be held responsible for any injury we or our collaborators
cause to persons or property by exposure to, or release of, any hazardous materials. However, we believe that we are currently
in compliance with all material applicable environmental and occupational health and safety regulations.
Even if we successfully
commercialize any of our vaccine candidates, either alone or in collaboration, we face uncertainty with respect to pricing, third-party
reimbursement and healthcare reform, all of which could adversely affect any commercial success of our vaccine candidates.
Our ability to collect
revenue from the commercial sale of our vaccines may depend on our ability, and that of any current or potential future collaboration
partners or customers, to obtain adequate levels of approval, coverage and reimbursement for such products from third-party payers
such as:
|
·
|
government health administration authorities
such as the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”);
|
|
·
|
private health insurers;
|
|
·
|
managed care organizations;
|
|
·
|
pharmacy benefit management companies;
and
|
|
·
|
other healthcare related organizations.
|
Third-party payers
are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and may deny coverage or offer inadequate levels of reimbursement
if they determine that a prescribed product has not received appropriate clearances from the FDA, or foreign equivalent, or other
government regulators; is not used in accordance with cost-effective treatment methods as determined by the third-party payer;
or is experimental, unnecessary or inappropriate. Prices could also be driven down by managed care organizations that control or
significantly influence utilization of healthcare products.
In both the U.S. and
some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals and initiatives to change the health
care system in ways that could affect our ability to sell vaccines. Some of these proposed and implemented reforms could result
in reduced reimbursement rates for medical products, and while we have no current vaccines available for commercial sale, the impact
of such reform could nevertheless adversely affect our business strategy, operations and financial results. For example, the Healthcare
Reform Act contained several cost containment measures that could adversely affect our future revenue, including, for example,
increased drug rebates under Medicaid for brand name prescription drugs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care
organizations, and extension of so-called 340B discounted pricing on pharmaceuticals sold to certain healthcare providers. Additional
provisions of the healthcare reform laws that may negatively affect our future revenue and prospects for profitability include
the assessment of an annual fee based on our proportionate share of sales of brand name prescription drugs to certain government
programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, as well as mandatory discounts on drugs (including vaccines) sold to certain Medicare
Part D beneficiaries in the coverage gap (the so-called “donut hole”). Other aspects of healthcare reform, such as
expanded government enforcement authority and heightened standards that could increase compliance-related costs, could also affect
our business. In addition, we face uncertainties because there are ongoing federal legislative and administrative efforts to repeal,
substantially modify or invalidate some or all of the provisions of the Healthcare Reform Act. For example, in 2017, the President
announced that his administration will withhold the cost-sharing subsidies paid to health insurance exchange plans serving low-income
enrollees. Tax reform legislation was also enacted at the end of 2017 that includes provisions that will affect healthcare insurance
coverage and payment, such as the elimination of the tax penalty for individuals who do not maintain sufficient health insurance
coverage beginning in 2019 (the so-called “individual mandate”). The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 contained various
provisions that affect coverage and reimbursement of drugs, including an increase in the mandatory discounts on pharmaceuticals
sold to certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries in the coverage gap starting in 2019. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing
or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or the impact of potential legislation on us.
If our product
candidates obtain marketing approval, we will be subject to additional healthcare laws and our failure to comply with those laws
could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial conditions.
Within the U.S., if
we obtain approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing them, our operations may be directly, or indirectly
through our customers, subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal and state governments. In addition
to the laws mentioned above, the laws that may affect our ability to operate include:
|
·
|
the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which
among other things, strictly regulates drug product marketing and promotion and prohibits manufacturers from marketing such products
for off-label use;
|
|
·
|
the federal anti-kickback law, which prohibits,
among other things, persons from soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce the referral
for an item or service or the purchasing or ordering of a good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare
programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;
|
|
·
|
federal false claims laws which prohibit,
among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, information or claims for payment
from Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent;
|
|
·
|
federal laws that require pharmaceutical
manufacturers to report certain calculated product prices to the government or provide certain discounts or rebates to government
authorities or private entities, often as a condition of reimbursement under government healthcare programs;
|
|
·
|
the so-called “federal sunshine”
law (also known as “open payments”) which requires pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to report certain
financial interactions to the federal government for re-disclosure to the public;
|
|
·
|
the federal law known as HIPAA, which,
in addition to privacy protections applicable to healthcare providers and other entities, prohibits executing a scheme to defraud
any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters;
|
|
·
|
state law equivalents of the above federal
laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including
commercial insurers, and state gift ban and transparency laws, many of which state laws differ from each other in significant ways
and often are not preempted by federal laws, thus complicating compliance efforts; and
|
|
·
|
state laws restricting interactions with
healthcare providers and other members of the healthcare community or requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to implement certain
compliance standards.
|
Because of the breadth
of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business
activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any
of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to, on a corporate or individual basis,
penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, the exclusion
from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and even imprisonment, any of which could materially adversely affect
our ability to operate our business and our financial results. In addition, the cost of implementing sufficient systems, controls,
and processes to ensure compliance with all of the aforementioned laws could be significant.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RISKS
Our success depends
on our ability to maintain the proprietary nature of our technology.
Our success in large
part depends on our ability to maintain the proprietary nature of our technology and other trade secrets. To do so, we must prosecute
and maintain existing patents, obtain new patents and pursue trade secret and other intellectual property protection. We also must
operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third-parties or allowing third-parties to infringe our rights. We currently
have or have rights to over 350 U.S. patents and corresponding foreign patents and patent applications covering our technologies.
However, patent issues relating to pharmaceuticals and biologics involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. To date,
no consistent policy has emerged regarding the breadth of biotechnology patent claims that are granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) or enforced by the federal courts. Therefore, we do not know whether our patent applications will
result in the issuance of patents, or that any patents issued to us will provide us with any competitive advantage. We also cannot
be sure that we will develop additional proprietary products that are patentable. Furthermore, there is a risk that others will
independently develop or duplicate similar technology or products or circumvent the patents issued to us.
There is a risk that
third-parties may challenge our existing patents or claim that we are infringing their patents or proprietary rights. We could
incur substantial costs in defending patent infringement suits or in filing suits against others to have their patents declared
invalid or claim infringement. It is also possible that we may be required to obtain licenses from third-parties to avoid infringing
third-party patents or other proprietary rights. We cannot be sure that such third-party licenses would be available to us on acceptable
terms, if at all. If we are unable to obtain required third-party licenses, we may be delayed in or prohibited from developing,
manufacturing or selling products requiring such licenses.
Although our patent
filings include claims covering various features of our vaccine candidates, including composition, methods of manufacture and use,
our patents do not provide us with complete protection against the development of competing products. Some of our know-how and
technology is not patentable. To protect our proprietary rights in unpatentable intellectual property and trade secrets, we require
employees, consultants, advisors and collaborators to enter into confidentiality agreements. These agreements may not provide meaningful
protection for our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information.
Third parties
may claim we infringe their intellectual property rights.
Our research, development
and commercialization activities, including any vaccine candidates resulting from these activities, may infringe or be claimed
to infringe patents owned by third-parties and to which we do not hold licenses or other rights. There may be rights we are not
aware of, including applications that have been filed, but not published that, when issued, could be asserted against us. These
third-parties could bring claims against us, and that would cause us to incur substantial expenses and, if successful against us,
could cause us to pay substantial damages. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced to
stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or biologic drug candidate that is the subject of the
suit.
As a result of patent
infringement claims, or in order to avoid potential claims, we may choose or be required to seek a license from the third-party.
These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, the license would
likely obligate us to pay license fees or royalties or both, and the rights granted to us might be non-exclusive, which could result
in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product,
or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims,
we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. All of the issues described above could also impact our collaborators,
which would also impact the success of the collaboration and therefore us.
There has been substantial
litigation and other proceedings regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology
industries.
We may become
involved in litigation to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our collaborators or licensors, which could be expensive
and time-consuming.
Competitors may infringe
our patents or the patents of our collaborators or licensors. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to counter
infringement for unauthorized use. This can be expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. In addition,
in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop
the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover its technology. An adverse determination
of any litigation or defense proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly
and could put our patent applications at the risk of not issuing.
Even if we are successful,
litigation may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. Even with a broad portfolio, we may not be able,
alone or with our collaborators and licensors, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries
where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the U.S.
Furthermore, because
of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some
of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, during the course
of this kind of litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings
or developments. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly
harmed.
The scope, validity,
and ownership of our patent claims may be challenged in various venues and, if we do not prevail, our ability to exclude competitors
may be harmed, potentially reducing our ability to succeed commercially.
We may be subject to
a variety of challenges from third-parties that relate to the scope of the claims or to their validity. Such challenges can be
mounted in post-grant review, ex parte re-examination, and inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO, or similar adversarial
proceedings in other jurisdictions. If we are unsuccessful in any such challenge, the scope of our claims could be narrowed, and
the patent or claims thereof could be invalidated. Any such outcome could impair our ability to exclude competitors from the market
in those countries, potentially impacting our commercial success.
Our patents may be
subject to various challenges related to ownership and inventorship, including interference or derivation proceedings. Third-parties
may assert that they are inventors on our patents or that they are owners of the patents. While we perform inventorship analyses
to insure that the correct inventors are listed on our patents, we cannot be certain that a court of competent jurisdiction would
arrive at the same conclusions we do. If we are unsuccessful in defending against ownership or inventorship challenges, a court
may require us to list additional inventors, may invalidate the patent, or may transfer ownership of the patent to a third-party.
Any of these outcomes may harm our ability to exclude competitors and potentially impact our commercial success. Further, if ownership
is transferred to a third-party we may be required to seek a license to those rights to preserve our exclusive ability to practice
the invention. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If we are unable to obtain a license,
we may be required to expend time, effort, and other resources to design around the patent. Any such license may be non-exclusive
and if a competitor is able to obtain a license from the third-party, our ability to exclude that competitor from the market may
be negatively impacted.
Even if we are ultimately
successful, defending any such challenges may cause us to incur substantial expenses and may require us to divert substantial financial
and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.
We may need to
license intellectual property from third-parties and, if our right to use the intellectual property we license is affected, our
ability to develop and commercialize our vaccine candidates may be harmed.
We have in the past,
and we expect in the future to license intellectual property from third-parties and that these licenses will be material to our
business. We will not own the patents or patent applications that underlie these licenses, and we will not control the enforcement
of the patents. We will rely upon our licensors to properly prosecute and file those patent applications and prevent infringement
of those patents.
Our license agreement
with Wyeth, which gives us rights to a family of patents and patent applications that are expected to expire in early 2022, covering
VLP technology for use in human vaccines in certain fields of use, is non-exclusive. If each milestone is achieved for any particular
vaccine candidate, we would likely be obligated to pay an aggregate of $15 million to Wyeth for each vaccine candidate developed
and commercialized under the agreement. Achievement of each milestone is subject to many risks, including those described in these
risk factors. Annual license fees under the Wyeth agreement aggregate to $0.3 million per year. In September 2015, the Company
entered into an amendment to the license agreement with Wyeth. Among other things, the amendment restructured the $3 million milestone
payment owed as a result of CPLB’s initiation of a Phase 3 clinical trial for its recombinant trivalent seasonal VLP influenza
vaccine candidate in 2014 into a revised milestone payment of $4 million.
While many of the licenses
under which we have rights provide us with rights in specified fields, the scope of our rights under these and other licenses may
be subject to dispute by our licensors or third-parties. In addition, our rights to use these technologies and practice the inventions
claimed in the licensed patents and patent applications are subject to our licensors abiding by the terms of those licenses and
not terminating them. Any of our licenses may be terminated by the licensor if we are in breach of a term or condition of the license
agreement, or in certain other circumstances.
Further, any disputes
regarding obligations in licenses may require us to take expensive and time-consuming legal action to resolve, and, even if we
are successful, may delay our ability to commercialize products and generate revenue. Further, if we are unable to resolve license
issues that arise we may lose rights to practice intellectual property that is required to make, use, or sell products. Any such
loss could compromise our development and commercialization efforts for current or future product candidates and/or may require
additional effort and expense to design around.
Our vaccine candidates
and potential vaccine candidates will require several components that may each be the subject of a license agreement. The cumulative
license fees and royalties for these components may make the commercialization of these vaccine candidates uneconomical.
If patent laws
or the interpretation of patent laws change, our competitors may be able to develop and commercialize our discoveries.
Important legal issues
remain to be resolved as to the extent and scope of available patent protection for biopharmaceutical products and processes in
the U.S. and other important markets outside the U.S., such as Europe and Japan. In addition, foreign markets may not provide the
same level of patent protection as provided under the U.S. patent system. Litigation or administrative proceedings may be necessary
to determine the validity and scope of certain of our and others’ proprietary rights. Any such litigation or proceeding may
result in a significant commitment of resources in the future and could force us to do one or more of the following: cease selling
or using any of our products that incorporate the challenged intellectual property, which would adversely affect our revenue; obtain
a license from the holder of the intellectual property right alleged to have been infringed, which license may not be available
on reasonable terms, if at all; and redesign our products to avoid infringing the intellectual property rights of third-parties,
which may be time-consuming or impossible to do. In addition, changes in, or different interpretations of, patent laws in the U.S.
and other countries may result in patent laws that allow others to use our discoveries or develop and commercialize our products.
We cannot provide assurance that the patents we obtain or the unpatented technology we hold will afford us significant commercial
protection.
Risks
Related to OUR Convertible SENIOR Notes
Servicing our
3.75% convertible senior unsecured notes due 2023 (the “Notes”) requires a significant amount of cash, and we may not
have sufficient cash flow to pay our debt.
In
2016, we issued $325 million aggregate principal amount of Notes. Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to
pay interest on, or to refinance our indebtedness, including the Notes, depends on our future performance, which is subject to
economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. We do not expect our business to be able to generate cash
flow from operations, in the foreseeable future, sufficient to service our debt and make necessary capital expenditures and may
therefore be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity
capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness, which is non-callable and matures
in 2023, will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. We may not be able to engage in any of these
activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations, and limit
our flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes in our business.
We may not have
the ability to raise the funds necessary to repurchase the Notes as required upon a fundamental change, and our future debt may
contain limitations on our ability to repurchase the Notes.
Holders of the Notes
will have the right to require us to repurchase their Notes for cash upon the occurrence of a fundamental change at a fundamental
change repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be repurchased,
plus
accrued and unpaid interest,
if any. A fundamental change may also constitute an event of default or prepayment under, and result in the acceleration of the
maturity of, our then-existing indebtedness. We cannot assure you that we will have sufficient financial resources, or will be
able to arrange financing, to pay the fundamental change repurchase price in cash with respect to any Notes surrendered by holders
for repurchase upon a fundamental change. In addition, restrictions in our then existing credit facilities or other indebtedness,
if any, may not allow us to repurchase the Notes upon a fundamental change. Our failure to repurchase the Notes upon a fundamental
change when required would result in an event of default with respect to the Notes which could, in turn, constitute a default under
the terms of our other indebtedness, if any. If the repayment of the related indebtedness were to be accelerated after any applicable
notice or grace periods, we may not have sufficient funds to repay the indebtedness and repurchase the Notes.
Capped call transactions
entered into in connection with our Notes may affect the value of our common stock.
In connection with
our Notes, we entered into capped call transactions (the “capped call transactions”) with certain financial institutions.
The capped call transactions are expected to generally reduce the potential dilution upon conversion of the Notes into shares of
our common stock.
In connection with
establishing their initial hedges of the capped call transactions, these financial institutions or their respective affiliates
entered into various derivative transactions with respect to our common stock and/or to purchase our common stock. The financial
institutions, or their respective affiliates, may modify their hedge positions by entering into or unwinding various derivatives
with respect to our common stock and/or purchasing or selling our common stock or other securities of ours in secondary market
transactions prior to the maturity of the Notes. This activity could also cause or avoid an increase or a decrease in the market
price of our common stock or the Notes, which could affect the value of our common stock.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMMON STOCK AND
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Because our stock
price has been and will likely continue to be highly volatile, the market price of our common stock may be lower or more volatile
than expected.
Our stock price has
been highly volatile. The stock market in general and the market for biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme
volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. From January 1, 2017 through December
31, 2017, the closing sale price of our common stock has been as low as $0.73 per share and as high as $1.63 per share. The market
price of our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:
|
·
|
future announcements about us or our collaborators
or competitors, including the results of testing, technological innovations or new commercial products;
|
|
·
|
clinical trial results;
|
|
·
|
depletion of our cash reserves;
|
|
·
|
sale of equity securities or issuance
of additional debt;
|
|
·
|
announcement by us of significant strategic
partnerships, collaborations, joint ventures, capital commitments or acquisitions;
|
|
·
|
changes in government regulations;
|
|
·
|
impact of competitor successes and in
particular development success of vaccine candidates that compete with our own vaccine candidates;
|
|
·
|
developments in our relationships with
our collaboration partners;
|
|
·
|
announcements relating to health care
reform and reimbursement levels for new vaccines and other matters affecting our business and results, regardless of accuracy;
|
|
·
|
sales of substantial amounts of our stock
by existing stockholders (including stock by insiders or 5% stockholders);
|
|
·
|
development, spread or new announcements
related to pandemic diseases;
|
|
·
|
public concern as to the safety of our
products;
|
|
·
|
significant set-backs or concerns with
the industry or the market as a whole;
|
|
·
|
regulatory inquiries, reviews and potential
action, including from the FDA or the SEC;
|
|
·
|
recommendations by securities analysts
or changes in earnings estimates; and
|
|
·
|
the other factors described in this Risk
Factors section.
|
In addition, the stock
market in general, and the market for biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations
that have particularly affected the market price for many of those companies. These fluctuations have often been unrelated to the
operating performance of these companies. These broad market fluctuations may cause the market price of our common stock to be
lower or more volatile than expected.
The Nasdaq Global
Select Market has a listing requirement; if a participating company no longer meets such requirements and fails to correct the
listing deficiency, its stock may be delisted.
The Nasdaq Global Select
Market (“Nasdaq”), on which our common stock is listed and traded, has listing requirements that include a $1 minimum
closing bid price requirement. If we fail to satisfy this or other listing requirements, Nasdaq may elect, subject to any potential
cure periods, to initiate a process that may delist our common stock. Should such a delisting occur, it may adversely impact the
liquidity and price of our common stock, impede our ability to raise capital and would constitute a fundamental change under our
Notes.
Provisions of
our Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated By-Laws and Delaware law could delay or prevent
the acquisition of the Company, even if such acquisition would be beneficial to stockholders, and could impede changes in our Board.
Provisions in our organizational
documents could hamper a third-party’s attempt to acquire, or discourage a third-party from attempting to acquire control
of, the Company. Stockholders who wish to participate in these transactions may not have the opportunity to do so. Our organizational
documents also could limit the price investors are willing to pay in the future for our securities and make it more difficult to
change the composition of our Board in any one year. Certain provisions include the right of the existence of a staggered board
with three classes of directors serving staggered three-year terms and advance notice requirements for stockholders to nominate
directors and make proposals.
As a Delaware corporation,
we are also afforded the protections of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which will prevent us from engaging
in a business combination with a person who acquires at least 15% of our common stock for a period of three years from the date
such person acquired such common stock, unless advance board or stockholder approval was obtained.
Any delay or prevention
of a change of control transaction or changes in our Board or management could deter potential acquirers or prevent the completion
of a transaction in which our stockholders could receive a substantial premium over the then current market price for their shares.
We have never
paid dividends on our capital stock, and we do not anticipate paying any such dividends in the foreseeable future.
We have never paid
cash dividends on our common stock. We currently anticipate that we will retain all of our earnings for use in the development
of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. As a result, capital appreciation, if
any, of our common stock would be the only source of gain for stockholders until dividends are paid, if at all.