ITEM
1. BUSINESS
Business
Abeona
Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation (together with our subsidiaries, “we,” “our,” “Abeona”
or the “Company”), is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing gene and cell therapies for life-threatening
rare genetic diseases. Our lead clinical programs consist of: (i) EB-101, an autologous, gene-corrected cell therapy for recessive
dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (“RDEB”), (ii) ABO-102, an adeno-associated virus (“AAV”)-based gene
therapy for Sanfilippo syndrome type A (“MPS IIIA”) and (iii) ABO-101, an AAV-based gene therapy for Sanfilippo syndrome
type B (“MPS IIIB”). We have additional AAV-based gene therapies in various developmental stages designed to treat
the CLN1 and CLN3 forms of Batten Disease, cystic fibrosis and retinal diseases. In addition, we are developing next-generation
AAV-based gene therapies through our novel AIM™ capsid platform and internal AAV vector research programs. We believe our
product candidates are eligible for orphan drug designation, breakthrough therapy designation, or other expedited review processes
in the U.S., Europe or Japan. Our pipeline includes five product candidates for which we hold several U.S. and EU regulatory designations:
Our
robust pipeline features early-stage and late-stage candidates with the potential to transform the treatment of devastating genetic
diseases, and we are conducting clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad.
Our
Mission and Strategy
Abeona
is at the forefront of gene and cell therapy research and development. We are a fully-integrated company featuring therapies in
clinical development, in-house manufacturing facilities, a robust pipeline, and scientific, clinical, and commercial leadership.
We see our mission as working to create, develop, manufacture and deliver gene and cell therapies for people impacted by serious
diseases. We partner with leading academic researchers, patient advocacy organizations and caregivers to develop therapies that
address the underlying cause of a broad spectrum of rare genetic diseases for which no effective treatment options exist today.
Since
our last fiscal year, we have made progress toward fulfilling our goal of harnessing the promise of genetic medicine to transform
the lives of people impacted by serious diseases and redefining the standard of care through gene and cell therapies. Our strategy
to achieve this goal consists of:
Advancing
our Clinical Gene and Cell Therapy Programs and Research and Development with a Focus on Rare and Orphan Diseases.
We
have three programs in clinical development—EB-101, ABO-101 and ABO-102—and a pipeline of additional earlier stage
programs. Through our gene and cell therapy expertise in research and development, we believe we are positioned to introduce meaningful
therapeutics to transform the standard of care in devastating diseases and establish our leadership position in the field.
Applying
Novel Next-Generation AIM™ Capsid Technology to Develop New In-Vivo Gene Therapies.
We
are researching and developing next-generation AAV-based gene therapy using our novel capsids developed from the AIM™ Capsid
Technology Platform and additional Company-invented AAV capsids. We aim to continue to develop chimeric AAV capsids capable of
improved tissue targeting for various indications and potentially evading immunity to wildtype AAV vectors.
Establishing
Leadership Position in Commercial-Scale Gene and Cell Therapy Manufacturing.
We
established current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”), clinical-scale manufacturing capabilities for gene-corrected
cell therapy and AAV-based gene therapies in our state-of-the-art Cleveland, OH facility. We believe that our platform provides
us with distinct advantages, including flexibility, scale, reliability, and the potential for reduced development risk, cost,
and faster times to market. We have focused on establishing internal Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (“CMC”)
capabilities that drive value for our organization through process development, assay development and manufacturing. We have also
deployed robust quality systems governing all aspects of product lifecycle from preclinical through commercial stage.
Establishing
Additional Gene and Cell Therapy Franchises and Adjacencies through In-Licensing and Strategic Partnerships.
We
seek to be the partner of choice in rare disease and have closely collaborated with leading academic institutions, key opinion
leaders, patient foundations and industry partners to generate novel intellectual property, accelerate research and development,
and understand the needs of patients and their families.
Maintaining
and Growing IP Portfolio.
We
strive to have a leading intellectual property portfolio. To that end, we seek patent rights for various aspects of our programs,
including vector engineering and construct design, our production process, and all features of our clinical products including
composition of matter and method of administration and delivery. We expect to continue to expand our intellectual property portfolio
by aggressively seeking patent rights for promising aspects of our product engine and product candidates.
Our
Pipeline
Our
robust pipeline features early-stage and late-stage candidates with the potential to transform the treatment of devastating genetic
diseases, and we are conducting clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad.
Our
lead clinical programs consist of: (i) EB-101, an autologous, gene-corrected cell therapy for RDEB, (ii) ABO-102, an AAV-based
gene therapy for MPS IIIA and (iii) ABO-101, an AAV-based gene therapy for MPS IIIB. We have additional AAV-based gene therapies
in various developmental stages designed to treat the CLN1 and CLN3 forms of Batten Disease, cystic fibrosis and retinal diseases.
In addition, we are developing next-generation AAV-based gene therapies through our novel AIM™ capsid platform and internal
AAV vector research programs.
Developing
Next Generation Gene and Cell Therapy
EB-101
for the Treatment of Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (“RDEB”)
Disease
Overview
RDEB
belongs to a group of genetic skin disorders known more broadly as epidermolysis bullosa (“EB”). Patients with RDEB
have a defect in the COL7A1 gene resulting in the inability to produce Type VII collagen, which plays an important role in anchoring
the dermal and epidermal layers of the skin. RDEB patients have extremely fragile skin resulting in severe and chronic blistering
and mutilating scarring throughout the body, fusion of fingers and toes (called pseudo-syndactyly), joint contractures, strictures
of the esophagus, a high risk of developing aggressive squamous cell carcinomas and infections, and a high risk of premature death.
The
two most common subtypes of RDEB are (1) Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa - Severe (“RDEB-GS”); and (2)
Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa - Generalized Other (“RDEB-GO”). The two subtypes differ in the specific
genetic mutation type which correlates with defects in Collagen VII formation and results in different phenotypes. Individuals
with RDEB-GS produce little or no Collagen VII. They have generalized blistering from birth that results in extensive scarring,
sparse hair, and blistering of the mucous membranes. Patients with RDEB-GO produce some functional, albeit abnormal, Collagen
VII and therefore have more variable and generally less severe disease manifestation. Nevertheless, as described in natural history
studies and in the NEBR registry (Fine, J., 2016), some patients with RDEB-GS and RDEB-GO have persistent blistering, severe systemic
complications and are at a higher risk of premature death. As observed in the RDEB Registry, patients with RDEB-GS and RDEB-GO
have twenty times and five times, respectively, greater probability of death at the age of 30 years than the general population.
The
incidence and prevalence of RDEB are not well defined. To date, the estimated incidence of 0.2-6.65 per million births and prevalence
of 3.5-20.4 per million people have been primarily characterized by limited analyses of clinical databases or registries. Using
genetic modeling of pathogenic variants of the COL7A1 gene, we estimate the incidence of RDEB to be 95 per million births in the
U.S., of which 3% are RDEB-GS. Considering the relative mortality rates of RDEB-GS, RDEB-GO, and general population, we estimate
a prevalence of RDEB from 700 to 4,000 patients in the U.S. (most likely estimate of 2,500 patients), many of whom could benefit
from a treatment such as EB-101. This estimate is similar to the number of RDEB patients registered with DEBRA, an advocacy group
in the U.S. devoted to the patient community with EB.
From
a natural history study conducted by Stanford University in 2017 (Solis, D., et al., 2017), RDEB-GS and RDEB-GO patients have
on average eight chronic and recurrent wounds of varying sizes per patient, with the majority of wounds being >20cm2.
Chronic wounds, which have an average area of >100 cm2, are defined as those that stay open for more than 12 weeks. Recurrent
wounds partially heal but easily re-blister, with most wounds re-blistering within three weeks of healing; recurrent wounds tend
to be smaller, with an average size of ~26 cm2. The larger wounds carry the highest burden, including pain, pruritis, risk of
infection and need of frequent dressing changes.
Current
Management of RDEB
At
present, there are no approved treatments available for RDEB in the U.S. or Europe. The management of RDEB currently consists
of supportive wound care to limit contamination/infection and reduce mechanical forces that produce new blisters. Wound care usually
includes treatment of new blisters by lancing and draining. Wounds are then dressed with a non-adherent material, covered with
padding for stability and protection, and secured with an elastic wrap for integrity.
Individuals
with RDEB have increased caloric and protein needs due to the increased energy utilized in wound healing, while oral intake is
limited by oral and esophageal involvement. Infants and children with RDEB may require nutritional support, including a gastrostomy
feeding tube. Anemia is typically treated with iron supplements and transfusions as needed.
We
estimate that the annual cost of wound dressings alone for an RDEB patient is in the range of $4,000 to $245,000 per year.
Program
Status
EB-101
is an autologous, gene-corrected cell therapy in which the functioning COL7A1 gene is inserted into a patient’s own skin
cells (keratinocytes) and transplanted back to the patient to restore Type VII collagen expression and skin function. Based on
data from the completed Phase I/II study and expert input, we expect EB-101 to be a potential treatment choice for most wounds,
and the only product candidate that has shown durable wound healing for larger wounds. EB-101 has been granted both RMAT and Breakthrough
designations, FDA and EU Orphan Drug designations and FDA Rare Pediatric Disease designation.
Results
from a completed Phase I/II study (Phase I/II gene transfer for recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (NCT01263379)) that
enrolled 7 patients with chronic RDEB wounds at Stanford University showed that EB-101 was well-tolerated and resulted in significant
and durable wound healing (Siprashvili, Z., et al., 2016). The Phase I/II study showed significant and durable healing of large
chronic wounds, with up to five years of follow-up (Eichstadt, S., et al. JCI Insight 2019). There have been no reported serious
adverse events observed to date. Continuous Type VII collagen expression was observed for more than two years post treatment.
There has been no detection of replication competent retrovirus up to four years.
We
have initiated a pivotal Phase III clinical trial evaluating the potential of EB-101 for the treatment of RDEB in the first
quarter of 2020. The VIITAL™ Study will be a multicenter, randomized, Phase III clinical trial assessing 10-15 patients
treated with EB-101. The intended primary endpoint of the study will be the proportion of EB-101 treated wounds with
>50% healing at three months, compared with untreated wound site on the same patient. Secondary endpoints will include
patient reported outcomes such as pain and itch and investigator global assessment of wounds. Endpoints and other
characteristics of the study remain subject to change based on communications with the FDA.
ABO-102
and ABO-101 for the treatment of Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) III (Sanfilippo syndrome)
Disease
Overview
MPS
III (Sanfilippo syndrome) is a group of four inherited lysosomal storage diseases, described as type A, B, C or D, which result
from enzyme deficiencies that lead to abnormal accumulation of glycosaminoglycans (sugars) in body tissues. The incidence of MPS
III (all four types combined) is estimated to be 1 in 70,000 births.
Lysosomes
are intra-cellular structures responsible for a continuous process of replacing used materials and breaking them down for disposal.
Children with MPS III are missing a lysosomal enzyme that is essential in breaking down used mucopolysaccharides, specifically
heparan sulfate (“HS”). The partially broken down heparan sulfate remains stored in cells in the body causing progressive
lysosomal and cell damage and eventually cell death. Babies may show little sign of the disease at first, but as neurodevelopment
is impaired and more cells become damaged, symptoms start to appear within the first few years of life.
In
MPS III, the predominant symptoms are characterized by speech/language delay, cognitive decline, behavioral abnormalities, motor
dysfunction, and seizures, eventually leading to premature death. Most patients with the rapidly progressing form of MPS III do
not reach a cognitive function above that of an unaffected three-year-old child. Accumulation of heparan sulfate and cell dysfunction
also affects other organs, leading to liver enlargement and soft tissue coarsening. To date, there is no cure for MPS III and
care is only supportive and palliative.
Program
Status
We
are developing AAV9-based gene therapies for MPS IIIA and MPS IIIB (Sanfilippo syndrome Type A and Sanfilippo syndrome Type B),
ABO-102 and ABO-101, respectively. These gene therapies are administered once through intravenous infusion. ABO-102 and ABO-102
deliver a functioning copy of the defective gene to cells of the central nervous system (“CNS”) and peripheral organs
with the aim of halting the deleterious effects caused by the malfunctioning enzyme and impairment of lysosomal functioning. Both
viral vector constructs rely on the neurotropism of the serotype AAV9 to cross the blood brain barrier (“BBB”) and
deliver the functional copy of the gene to the CNS.
ABO-102
for MPS IIIA
Preclinical
in vivo efficacy studies in animals with MPS IIIA showed that a single dose of ABO-102 significantly restored cell and
organ function, corrected neurological deficits, increased motor control, and increased the lifespan by more than 100% one year
after treatment compared with untreated control animals. In addition, safety studies conducted in animal models of MPS IIIA have
demonstrated that delivery of ABO-102 is well-tolerated with minimal side effects. ABO-102 received Fast Track and RMAT designations
by the FDA, PRIME designation in the EU, Orphan Drug designations in the U.S. and EU, and FDA Rare Pediatric Disease designation.
On
October 25, 2019, we reported updated clinical data from the ongoing Phase I/II gene transfer clinical trial of scAAV9.U1a.hSGSH
for Mucopolysaccharidosis IIIA (study ABT-001; NCT02716246), our investigational gene therapy for the treatment of MPS IIIA. In
the trial, subjects received a single intravenous injection of ABO-102 to facilitate systemic delivery, including to the CNS,
of a corrective copy of the gene associated with onset and progression of MPS IIIA. Subjects were evaluated at multiple time points
post-treatment for safety and signals of biopotency and clinical efficacy. The results from the dose cohort 3 (currently enrolling)
showed evidence of preservation of neurocognitive development in the three young patients treated before 30 months of age, as
well as dose-related and sustained reduction in cerebrospinal fluid (“CSF”) levels of heparan sulfate, denoting transgene
expression in the CNS, and a durable reduction of liver volume. No treatment related serious adverse events (“SAEs”)
have been reported to date, with follow-up longer than two years post treatment in the majority of patients.
Summary
of MPS IIIA ABO-102 Phase I/II Study Data:
|
●
|
14
patients treated as of November 2019
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Clear
dose-response and sustained reduction of heparan sulfate levels in CSF
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Sustained
reduction in liver volume
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Encouraging
neurocognitive signals seen in younger, higher functioning patients enrolled in cohort 3
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
As
of November 2019, follow-up in cohort 1 (40-43 months); cohort 2 (32-35 months); and cohort 3 (13-29 months):
|
|
●
|
ABO-102
has been well tolerated to date
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
No
serious drug related adverse events
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
ELISpot
negative for the SGSH enzyme
|
We
have initiated a second Phase I/II clinical trial with ABO-102 (study ABT-003) to treat patients who do not qualify for participation
on study ABT-001 because of their more advanced cognitive impairment caused by MPS IIIA. The first patient in study ABT-003 was
enrolled in 2019 at Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Australia and a second patient started screening in
Spain. We also plan to initiate a trial in the U.S.
ABO-101
for MPSIIIB
In
the ABO-101 program for MPS IIIB, subjects in our ongoing clinical study (Phase I/II gene transfer clinical trial of rAAV9.CMV.hNAGLU
for Mucopolysaccharidosis IIIB (study ABT-002; NCT03315182)) receive a single, intravenous infusion of ABO-101, which uses an
AAV9 vector to introduce the functional NAGLU gene to treat patients with MPS IIIB disease. Subjects will be evaluated at multiple
time points post-injection for safety assessments and efficacy parameters. The clinical program is supported by a Natural History
Study which included assessments consisting of neurocognitive evaluations, biochemical assays and MRIs generated over one year
of follow-up assessments.
Preclinical
in vivo efficacy studies in mice with MPS IIIB showed that a single dose of ABO-101 significantly restored cell and organ
function, corrected neurological deficits, increased neuromuscular control, and normalized lifespan compared with untreated control
animals. In addition, safety studies conducted in MPS IIIB and wildtype mice and in non-human primates have demonstrated that
systemic delivery of ABO-101 is well tolerated with minimal side effects.
As
of November 2019, the clinical trial is ongoing in the U.S., Spain, and France.
Summary
of MPS IIIB ABO-101 Phase I/II Study Data:
|
●
|
7
patients treated as of November 2019
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Clear
signals of biologic effect with reduction of disease-specific biomarkers in the CSF, plasma and urine and reduction in liver
volumes
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
As
of November 2019, follow-up in cohort 1 (11-24 months) and cohort 2 (0-7 months):
|
|
●
|
ABO-101
has been well tolerated to date
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
No
serious drug related adverse events
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
ELISpot
negative for the NAGLU enzyme
|
ABO-202
for the treatment of CLN1 disease, also known as infantile Batten disease (or Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis) (“NCL”)
Disease
Overview
CLN1
disease (also known as infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis or Batten disease type 1) is a severe neurodegenerative lysosomal
storage disease, currently with no approved treatment. It is caused by mutations in the CLN1 gene, encoding the soluble lysosomal
enzyme palmitoyl-protein thioesterase-1 (“PPT1”).
In
the classic form, rapidly progressive clinical features appear between the ages of 6 and 24 months, including speech and motor
deterioration, refractory epilepsy, ataxia, myoclonus, and visual loss. By five years of age, CLN1 disease patients with the classic
infantile form are typically poorly responsive and are no longer communicative. Death follows a few years after disease onset.
Patients with low level of residual PPT1 activity develop a later onset form of CLN1 disease characterized by similar symptoms,
but with slower progression. Patients with later onset of CLN1 generally succumb to the disease in the second decade.
There
is no approved treatment for patients with CLN1 and the current care option is supportive and palliative. Gene therapy is proposed
as a potential treatment for CLN1.
ABO-202
is designed to replace the faulty gene in affected cells and restore functionality of the protein. This therapy’s viral
construct, utilizing the AAV9 serotype, is able to cross BBB to deliver the CLN1 gene to the CNS. The AAV9 trans-BBB neurotropism
is advantageous because of involvement of the CNS in disease progression. This potential therapy is designed to allow the transformed
cells to properly express the functional protein, and target PPT1 protein to the correct site of action, which in this case is
the lysosomal matrix. The corrected enzyme can be secreted by transduced CNS cells and be taken up by neighboring cells via mannose
6-phosphate-mediated endocytosis and trafficked to the lysosome, cross-correcting substrate storing cells. This enables a potential
therapeutic effect that goes beyond the initial transduction efficiency of the drug product. This in vivo gene therapy offers
the possibility of a one-time treatment by inserting a healthy copy of the CLN1 gene and allowing the body to start making the
missing enzyme, therefore slowing or halting CLN1 disease progression.
Program
Status
An
investigational new drug (“IND”) application was approved in May 2019.
The
preclinical data for ABO-202 were presented at our Research & Development Day on December 6, 2018 and updated versions of
the presentation were delivered at the WORLD Congress of Lysosomal Storage Diseases in Orlando, FL on February 6, 2019 and at
the meeting of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy in Washington DC on April 29, 2019. Key findings included:
|
●
|
CLN1
mice recapitulate the major features of the human disease manifestations;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
The
study data showed that a single intrathecal (“IT”) injection of self-complementary adeno-associated virus 9 (scAAV9)
encoding the human CLN1 gene administered to CLN1 mice at 1 week and 1 month (pre-symptomatic) and 12 weeks significantly
increased their survival, improved behavior and reduced motor deficits; higher IT doses further improved longevity and function,
suggesting that methods increasing CNS exposure may be beneficial and provided some survival and behavioral benefit to symptomatic
CLN1 mice;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
A
combination delivery approach administering ABO-202 by both intravenous and intrathecal routes to symptomatic animals (at
20 weeks) increased survival efficacy by >50% over intrathecal alone and significantly slowed disease progression, and
thus indicate a potential for treatment of patients with more advanced disease manifestations; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Consistent
with other AAV studies for lysosomal storage disease, early intervention (i.e., treatment at a younger age) yielded better
results compared with animals treated later, which required higher doses for the same benefit.
|
ABO-201
for the treatment of CLN3 disease, also known as juvenile Batten disease (or Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinoses) (“CLN3
Disease”)
Disease
Overview and Program Status
CLN3
disease is a rare, fatal, autosomal recessive (inherited) disorder of the nervous system that typically begins between 4 and 8
years of age. Often the first noticeable sign of CLN3 disease is vision impairment, which tends to progress rapidly and eventually
result in blindness. As the disease progresses, children experience loss of previously acquired skills (developmental regression).
This regression usually begins with the loss of the ability to speak in complete sentences. Children then lose motor skills, such
as the ability to walk or sit. They also develop movement abnormalities that include rigidity or stiffness, slow or diminished
movements (hypokinesia), and stooped posture. Beginning in mid- to late childhood, affected children may have recurrent seizures
(epilepsy), heart problems, behavioral problems, and difficulty sleeping. Normal life expectancy is greatly reduced. Most people
with juvenile Batten disease live into their twenties or thirties. As of December 31, 2019, no specific treatment is known that
can halt or reverse the symptoms of CLN3 disease.
CLN3
disease is the most common form of a group of disorders known as neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (“NCLs”). Collectively,
all forms of NCL affect an estimated 2 to 4 in 100,000 live births in the United States. NCLs are more common in Finland, where
approximately 1 in 12,500 individuals are affected, as well as Sweden, other parts of northern Europe, and Newfoundland, Canada.
CLN3
disease is the most common form of Batten disease. Mutations associated with CLN3 disrupt the function of cellular structures
called lysosomes. Lysosomes are compartments in the cell that normally digest and recycle different types of molecules. Lysosome
malfunction leads to a buildup of fatty substances called lipopigments and proteins within these cell structures. These accumulations
occur in cells throughout the body, but neurons in the brain seem to be particularly vulnerable to damage. The progressive functional
impairment and eventual death of cells, especially in the brain, leads to vision loss, seizures, and intellectual decline in children
with CLN3 disease.
ABO-201
(scAAV9.CLN3) is being developed as an AAV9-based gene therapy that has shown preclinical efficacy following delivery of a functioning
copy of the CLN3 gene to a mouse model of CLN3 disease. Preclinical studies have previously demonstrated reduced lysosomal storage
and decreased astrocyte/microglia activation in the CNS as well as improved motor function.
ABO-401
for the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis
Disease
Overview
Cystic
Fibrosis (“CF”) is a progressive, genetic disorder caused by a mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance
regulator (“CFTR”) gene. Malfunction of this gene affects cells that produce mucus, sweat and digestive juices. In
unaffected individuals, these secreted fluids are normally thin and slippery, but in cystic fibrosis, a defective gene causes
the secretions to become sticky and thick. Instead of acting as a lubricant, the secretions plug up tubes, ducts and passageways,
especially in the lungs and pancreas, and cause repeated lung infections and difficulty breathing, and impaired pancreas function
and digestive abnormalities.
Cystic
fibrosis affects at least 30,000 people in the United States; between 900 and 1,000 new cases are diagnosed every year.
Program
Status
The
preclinical ABO-401 program employs AAV204 AIMTM capsid. ABO-401 has shown ability to deliver the CFTR transgene to
the lungs of unaffected mice. Study results also demonstrate CFTR transgene expression that has corrected the underlying chloride
current deficit in CF animals. Correction of chloride channel current following ABO-401 administration occurred regardless of
underlying mutations of the CF transmembrane conductance regulators, including the most common CF mutation, delta-F508.
ABO-50X
for the treatment of genetic eye disorders
Program
Overview
This
research program comprises several vectors being tested for different monogenic retinal disorders. Eighty percent of genetic eye
disorders occur in the photoreceptors and a correction of mutations in the retina has been accomplished by several groups using
AAV gene therapy delivered through subretinal injection. We are exploring various routes of administration to deliver AAV to the
retina, including intravitreal delivery. We believe intravitreal delivery of small volume gene therapies is an attractive alternative
to deliver gene therapy to the retina in an out-patient setting.
Program
Status
We
reported non-human primate data suggesting that next-generation AIM™ AAV vectors can be used to efficiently target the retinal
epithelium after intravitreal injection, creating the potential for new pipeline candidates that can address multiple eye disorders.
Also
presented were data showing that certain AIM™ capsids demonstrated high tropisms for central nervous system tissue can evade
neutralizing antibodies against naturally occurring AAV serotype, and potentially enable redosing in patients that have previously
received an AAV injection.
Next-Generation
Gene Therapy Treatments anchored in AIM™ Vector Platform
In
2016, we licensed a library of first-generation novel AAV capsids from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In partnership
with academic institutions, our own scientific research teams have identified vectors within the AIM™ capsid library showing
strong potential to successfully target and reach the central nervous system, lung, skin, muscle, liver and other tissues. Based
on continuing research being conducted by Abeona and our research partners, we observed improvements in gene delivery to specific
tissues compared to currently available AAV technology. We believe AIM™ vectors also have the potential for redosing subjects
who previously received certain AAV gene therapy or subjects who have pre-existing antibodies to naturally occurring AAV serotypes.
Establishing
Leadership Position in Commercial-Scale Gene and Cell-Therapy Manufacturing
We
have established a cGMP manufacturing facility, the Elisa Linton Center located in Cleveland, Ohio, which enables us to enhance
supply chain control, establish tighter quality control testing, increase supply capacity, reduce production costs and gain manufacturing
efficiency for clinical trials related to our product candidates and ensure commercial demand is met in the event our therapies
receive marketing approval. Our facility is led by a team of highly-skilled production, process/assay development and QA/QC scientists
with expertise in gene and cell therapy, particularly in cell culture, formulation, upstream, downstream and purification manufacturing.
We have completed the first two phases of our 26,000+ square foot manufacturing build-out plans in Cleveland, Ohio. The first
phase, completed in 2018, was a 6,000 square foot state-of-the-art cGMP production facility for the manufacturing of gene and
cell therapies. The facility is designed to initially manufacture clinical drug products with later intent of manufacturing commercial
grade cGMP drug product. The second phase, completed in 2019, was the completion of an additional 8,000 square feet of state-of-the-art
laboratory space to support our expanding quality control and process development, and assay development teams. The second phase
also included nearly 2,000 square feet of GMP Inventory Control space. The last phase of our manufacturing build-out plan would
be a commercial AAV facility to support larger scale manufacturing to meet anticipated product demand globally.
We
have advanced our in-house manufacturing capabilities for our autologous cell replacement therapy (EB-101) for the treatment of
RDEB. The product is manufactured as a multilayer cellular sheet containing corrected keratinocytes that is fastened to a petrolatum
gauze backing with surgical hemoclips. It is applied over wound areas, where they are expected to produce keratinocytes with functioning
Type VII collagen, providing wound coverage and allowing for wound healing.
We
are developing manufacturing capabilities that use a chemical method called transfection for our AAV-based vector product candidates.
We insert (“transfect”) many copies of DNA plasmids encoding the specific therapeutic gene sequence, or transgene,
into human embryonic kidney (“HEK”) 293 cells using adherent and suspension vector production technologies. During
an incubation period following transfection, each cell produces AAV vectors through biosynthesis using the cells’ natural
machinery. At the end of the incubation period, the newly-generated vectors are collected from cells that have been broken apart
or, alternatively, from the cell culture medium. We continue to maintain focus on cGMP compliance and ensuring adequate supply
to support our future clinical activity.
We
have established and maintained strong and collaborative contract manufacturing and testing relationships with third-party companies
specializing in the manufacturing and/or testing of gene and cell therapy material to complement our process and assay development
needs.
We
have made significant investments in developing optimized manufacturing processes and believe that our processes and methods developed
to date provide a comprehensive manufacturing process for EB-101 and AAV-based vector therapies, including:
|
●
|
sufficient
scale to support commercial manufacturing requirements for EB-101;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
processes
related to biopsy, cell collection, storage and transportation as part of manufacturing for EB-101;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
processes
related to product release testing for EB-101;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
establishing
transportation and packaging processes and materials for finished EB-101 product;
|
|
●
|
proprietary
AAV vector manufacturing processes and techniques that produce a highly purified product candidate;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
AAV
suspension technology that is readily scalable;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
multiple
assays to accurately characterize our process and the AAV vectors we produce;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
a
series of purification processes, which may be adapted and customized for multiple different AAV capsids, with a goal of higher
concentrations of active vectors, and that are essentially free of empty capsids.
|
We
believe these improvements, and our continued investment in our manufacturing platform, will enable us to develop best-in-class,
next-generation gene and cell therapy products. As we look to commercialize EB-101, we are working towards filing a Biologics
License Application (“BLA”) to support commercial manufacturing of EB-101 from our Cleveland, OH facility.
Maintain
a Strong Intellectual Property Portfolio
We
strive to protect our commercially important proprietary technology, inventions, and know-how, including by seeking, maintaining,
and defending patent rights, both for inventions developed internally and for inventions licensed from third parties. We also
rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our proprietary technology platforms, continuing technological innovation, and
in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our position in the field of gene and cell therapy. We may also
rely on regulatory protection afforded through data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions where available.
Our
success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other protections for commercially important technology,
inventions and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce our patents; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets;
and operate without infringing the valid enforceable patents and intellectual property rights of third parties. Our ability to
stop third parties from making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products may depend on the extent
to which we have rights under valid and enforceable licenses, patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. In some cases,
these rights may need to be enforced by third-party licensors. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property,
we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent
applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted
to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing the same.
We
are actively seeking U.S. and international patent protection for a variety of technologies, including the following: research
tools and methods, methods for transferring genetic material into cells, AAV-based biological products, methods of designing novel
AAV constructs, methods for treating diseases of interest and methods for manufacturing, packaging, and transporting our product
candidates. We also intend to seek patent protection or rely upon trade secret rights to protect other technologies that may be
used to discover and validate targets and that may be used to identify and develop novel biological products. We seek protection,
in part, through confidentiality and proprietary information agreements. We are a party to various license agreements that give
us rights to use specific technologies in our research and development, and future commercialization.
Licensed
Technologies and Intellectual Property
|
1.
|
Mucopolysaccharidosis
(“MPS”) IIIA and IIIB
|
We
have secured an exclusive license through Nationwide Children’s Hospital to a family of patent applications for AAV-based
treatments for patients with MPS IIIA and IIIB. The family includes three pending applications in the United States. United States
patent(s) that may grant from this family would be expected to expire in approximately 2031 and 2032.
|
2.
|
CLN3
Disease (Juvenile Batten Disease)
|
We
have licensed exclusive rights to an international patent family from the University of Nebraska Medical Center and the Ohio State
Innovation Foundation, directed to AAV gene therapy for the treatment of CLN3 disease (also known as juvenile Batten disease).
The licensed patent family includes pending national stage applications in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Japan, New
Zealand, and Australia. United States patent(s) that may grant from this family would be expected to expire in approximately 2035.
|
3.
|
Recessive
Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa
|
To
support our EB franchise, we have licensed a patent family from Stanford University covering technology for the treatment of RDEB.
National stage patent applications are pending in the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, China, New Zealand,
Australia, Russia, Mexico, South Africa, and Brazil. United States patent(s) that may grant from this portfolio would be expected
to expire in approximately 2037. We have also filed a United States provisional patent application directed to packaging and transport
of the EB product.
We
have an exclusive license to an international patent family from UNC at Chapel Hill covering novel adeno-associated virus (“AAV”)
capsids (“AIM™ capsids”) that may potentially be used to deliver a wide variety of therapeutic transgenes to
human cells to treat genetic diseases. National stage applications directed to the AIM™ capsids have been filed in the United
States, Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Europe, Canada, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, and
South Africa. The first patent in this patent family, U.S. Patent No. 10,532,110 (the “‘110 Patent”),
issued to UNC on January 14, 2020. The ‘110 Patent is entitled to 352 days of patent term adjustment, making its projected
expiration date November 6, 2036. The second patent in this patent family, U.S. Patent No. 10,561,743 (the “‘743
Patent”), issued to UNC on February 18, 2020. The ‘743 Patent is expected to expire on November 20, 2035. We have
exclusive rights to both the ‘110 Patent and the ‘743 Patent under our license with UNC.
|
5.
|
CLN1
Disease (Infantile Batten Disease)
|
We
have also licensed from UNC at Chapel Hill rights to a patent portfolio directed to optimized CLN1 genes and expression cassettes,
to support our CLN1 disease (also known as infantile Batten disease) gene therapy program. Patent applications are pending in
the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and
South Africa. United States patent(s) that may grant from this portfolio would be expected to expire approximately in 2037.
To
support our gene therapy research program for the treatment of Rett Syndrome, we have licensed rights to patent applications from
both UNC at Chapel Hill and the University of Edinburgh. The patent applications licensed from UNC at Chapel Hill are directed
to viral genomes designed to regulate expression of the MeCP2 gene, which is mutated in patients with Rett Syndrome. The patent
applications licensed from the University of Edinburgh are directed to expression cassettes for MeCP2 polypeptides and to synthetic
MeCP2 polypeptides. National stage applications for the patent application directed to MeCP2 expression cassettes are now pending
in the United States, Canada, Brazil, China, Japan, Australia, Europe, India, South Korea, and Russia, and national stage applications
for the international application directed to synthetic polypeptides are currently pending in the United States, Canada, Brazil,
China, and Japan.
On
November 5, 2018, we announced a license agreement with REGENXBIO Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, REGENXBIO has granted
Abeona an exclusive worldwide license (subject to certain non-exclusive rights previously granted for MPS IIIA), with rights to
sublicense, to REGENXBIO’s NAV AAV9 vector for the development and commercialization of gene therapies for the treatment
of MPS IIIA, MPS IIIB, CLN1 Disease and CLN3 Disease. In return for these rights, REGENXBIO received a guaranteed $20 million
upfront payment, $10 million of which was paid on signing of the agreement on November 4, 2018 and $10 million of which was originally
required under the agreement to be paid by November 4, 2019. In addition, REGENXBIO will receive a total of $100 million in annual
fees, payable upon the second through sixth anniversaries of the agreement, $20 million of which is guaranteed and payable on
November 4, 2020. REGENXBIO is also eligible to receive potential commercial milestone payments of up to $60 million as well as
royalties payable in the low double digits to low teens on net sales of products incorporating the licensed intellectual property.
On November 1, 2019, we entered into an amendment to the original license agreement. The amended agreement replaced the $10 million
payment due on November 4, 2019 with a $3 million payment due on November 4, 2019 and an additional $8 million payment (which
includes $1 million of interest) due on April 1, 2020.
We
will explore in due course strategies to support patent term extensions for all of our licensed portfolios.
U.S.
Biologic Products Development Process
In
the United States, the FDA regulates biologic products including gene therapy products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (“FDCA”), the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), and regulations implementing these laws. The FDCA,
PHSA and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging,
storage, record keeping, distribution, advertising and promotion of biologic products. Applications to the FDA are required before
conducting human clinical testing of biologic products. Additionally, each clinical trial protocol for a gene therapy product
candidate is reviewed by the FDA and, in limited instances National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), through its Recombinant
DNA Advisory Committee (“RAC”). FDA approval also must be obtained before marketing of biologic products.
Within
the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) regulates gene therapy products. Within CBER, the
review of gene therapy and related products is consolidated in the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (“OTAT”)
and the FDA has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee (“CTGTAC”), a panel of medical
and scientific experts and consumer representatives, to advise CBER on its reviews. CBER works closely with NIH and the RAC, which
makes recommendations to NIH on gene therapy issues and engages in a public discussion of scientific, safety, ethical and societal
issues related to proposed and ongoing gene therapy protocols. The FDA has issued a growing body of guidance documents on chemistry,
manufacturing and control (“CMC”), clinical investigations and other areas of gene therapy development, all of which
are intended to facilitate the industry’s development of gene therapy products.
The
process required by the FDA before a biologic product candidate may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
|
●
|
completion
of preclinical laboratory tests and in vivo studies in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”)
regulations and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
submission
to the FDA of an application for an Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”), which allows human clinical
trials to begin unless the FDA objects within 30 days;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
approval
by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”), reviewing each clinical site before each clinical trial
may be initiated;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
performance
of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”)
regulations, and any additional requirements for the protection of human research subjects and their health information, to
establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biologic product candidate for its intended use;
|
|
●
|
preparation
and submission to the FDA of a BLA for marketing approval that includes substantial evidence of safety, purity and potency
from results of nonclinical testing and clinical trials;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
satisfactory
completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biologic product candidate
is produced to assess compliance with cGMP and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve
the biologic product candidate’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
potential
FDA audit of the nonclinical and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the BLA; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
payment
of user fees and the FDA review and approval, or licensure, of the BLA. BLA or new drug application (“NDA”), application
fees for products designated as orphan drugs by the FDA are waived.
|
Before
testing any biologic product candidate on humans, including a gene therapy product candidate, the product candidate must undergo
preclinical testing. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry,
toxicity and formulation, as well as in vivo studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The
conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs.
If
a gene therapy trial is conducted at, or sponsored by, institutions receiving NIH funding for recombinant DNA research, prior
to the submission of an IND to the FDA, a protocol and related documents must be submitted to, and the study registered with,
the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities (“OBA”), pursuant to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant
DNA Molecules (“NIH Guidelines”). Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions
receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA. However, many companies and other institutions, not otherwise subject
to the NIH Guidelines, voluntarily follow them. NIH is responsible for convening the RAC that discusses protocols that raise novel
or particularly important scientific, safety or ethical considerations at one of its quarterly public meetings. The OBA will notify
the FDA of the RAC’s decision regarding the necessity for full public review of a gene therapy protocol. RAC proceedings
and reports are posted to the OBA website and may be accessed by the public.
The
clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data,
any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing
may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless
the FDA places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding
concerns before the clinical trial can begin. With gene therapy protocols, if the FDA allows the IND to proceed, but the RAC decides
that full public review of the protocol is warranted, the FDA will request at the completion of its IND review that sponsors delay
initiation of the protocol until after completion of the RAC review process. The FDA also may impose clinical holds on a biologic
product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a
clinical hold, trials may not commence or recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA.
Human
clinical trials under an IND
Clinical
trials involve the administration of the biologic product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of
qualified investigators, which generally are physicians not employed by, or under the control of, the trial sponsor. Clinical
trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject
selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure
a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must
be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s
regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent.
Further,
each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will
be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers items such as whether
the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits.
The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject, or his
or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Clinical trials involving recombinant DNA also
must be reviewed by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and
oversees basic and clinical research that utilizes recombinant DNA at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research
and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment.
Human
clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
|
●
|
Phase
I: The biologic product candidate initially is introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance,
absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early understanding of its effectiveness. In
the case of some product candidates for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product candidate may be
too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Phase
II: The biologic product candidate is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety
risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage
tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Phase
III: The biologic product candidate is administered to an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical
trial sites in adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to generate sufficient data to statistically confirm the efficacy
and safety of the product for approval. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of
the product candidate and provide an adequate basis for product labeling.
|
Post-approval
clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV clinical trials, may be conducted after initial approval. These clinical trials
are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for
long-term safety follow-up.
During
all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities,
clinical data and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted
to the FDA.
Written
IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, NIH and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events;
any findings from other trials, in vivo laboratory tests or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects;
or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator
brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information
qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction
within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.
The
FDA, the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a
finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend
or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the
IRB’s requirements or if the biologic product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
Additional
regulation for gene therapy clinical trials
In
addition to the regulations discussed above, there are a number of additional standards that apply to clinical trials involving
the use of gene therapy. The FDA has issued various guidance documents regarding gene therapies, which outline additional factors
that the FDA will consider at each of the above stages of development and relate to, among other things: the proper preclinical
assessment of gene therapies; the CMC information that should be included in an IND application; the proper design of tests to
measure product efficacy in support of an IND or BLA application; and measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects
who have been exposed to investigational gene therapies when the risk of such effects is high. Further, the FDA usually recommends
that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum
of five years of annual examinations followed by 10 years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire.
NIH
and the FDA have a publicly accessible database, the Genetic Modification Clinical Research Information System, which includes
information on gene therapy trials and serves as an electronic tool to facilitate the reporting and analysis of adverse events
on these trials.
Compliance
with cGMP requirements
Manufacturers
of biologics must comply with applicable cGMP regulations. Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution
of such products also must register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing
establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing
process. Establishments may be subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with
cGMP requirements and other laws. Discovery of problems may result in a government entity placing restrictions on a product, manufacturer
or holder of an approved BLA, and may extend to requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. The FDA will not approve
an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMP requirements and are adequate
to assure consistent production of the product within required specification.
Concurrent
with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional preclinical studies and must also develop additional information about
the physical characteristics of the biologic product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product candidate
in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents
or of causing other adverse events with the use of biologic products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control
for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing
quality batches of the product candidate and, among other requirements, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity,
strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biologic product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and
tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biologic product candidate does not undergo unacceptable
deterioration over its shelf life.
U.S.
review and approval processes
The
results of the preclinical tests and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s CMC and
proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for
one or more indications.
For
gene therapies, selecting patients with applicable genetic defects is a necessary condition to effective treatment. For the therapies
we are currently developing, we believe that diagnoses based on symptoms, in conjunction with existing genetic tests developed
and administered by laboratories certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (“CLIA”), are sufficient
to select appropriate patients and will be permitted by the FDA. For future therapies, however, it may be necessary to use FDA-cleared
or FDA-approved diagnostic tests to select patients or to assure the safe and effective use of therapies in appropriate patients.
The FDA refers to such tests as in vitro companion diagnostic devices. On July 31, 2014, the FDA announced the publication of
a final guidance document describing the agency’s current thinking about the development and regulation of in vitro companion
diagnostic devices. The final guidance articulates a policy position that, when safe and effective use of a therapeutic product
depends on a diagnostic device, the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of the diagnostic device at the same time
that the FDA approves the therapeutic product. The final guidance allows for two exceptions to the general rule of concurrent
drug/device approval, namely, when the therapeutic product is intended to treat serious and life-threatening conditions for which
no alternative exists, and when a serious safety issue arises for an already approved therapeutic agent, and no FDA-cleared or
FDA-approved companion diagnostic test is yet available. At this point, it is unclear how the FDA will apply this policy to our
future gene therapy candidates, or even to our current products. Should the FDA deem genetic tests used for selecting appropriate
patients for our therapies to be in vitro companion diagnostics requiring FDA clearance or approval, we may face significant delays
or obstacles in obtaining approval for a BLA.
In
addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess
the safety and effectiveness of the biologic product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations
and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product candidate is safe and effective.
The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does
not apply to any biologic product candidate for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.
Under
the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts
the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s fee schedule, effective for fiscal year 2020, the user fee
for an application requiring clinical data, such as a BLA, is $2,942,965. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee of $325,424.
Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application
filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for product candidates designated as orphan drugs,
unless the product candidate also includes a non-orphan indication.
The
FDA reviews a BLA within 60 days of submission to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing.
The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request
additional information. In that event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application
also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an
in-depth, substantive review of the BLA.
The
FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product candidate is safe and potent, or effective,
for its intended use, has an acceptable purity profile and whether the product candidate is being manufactured in accordance with
cGMP to assure and preserve the product candidate’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may
refer applications for novel biologic products or biologic products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to
an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation
as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an
advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the product approval process,
the FDA also will determine whether a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) is necessary to assure the
safe use of the product candidate. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans and elements to assure
safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. If the FDA concludes
a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.
Before
approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product candidate is manufactured. The FDA will not approve
the product candidate unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMP requirements and are
adequate to assure consistent production of the product candidate within required specifications. Additionally, before approving
a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance
with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements.
On
the basis of the BLA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the
FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic
product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies
in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information for the FDA to reconsider the application. If
those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval
letter.
If
a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or
the indications for use may otherwise be limited. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions
be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing or dispensing
in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post-marketing clinical
trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV clinical trials, designed to further assess a biologic product’s safety and effectiveness,
and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.
The
FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review of BLAs under the PDUFA. One such goal is to review 90% of standard
BLAs in 10 months after the FDA accepts the BLA for filing, and 90% of priority BLAs in six months, whereupon a review decision
is to be made. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs and its review goals are subject
to change from time to time. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or
the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission
within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.
Orphan
drug designation
Under
the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a biologic product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare
disease or condition (generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases
in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a biologic product available in the United
States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product). Orphan product designation must
be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan product designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and
its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten
the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.
If
a product with orphan status receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the
product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, meaning that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same
drug or biologic product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical
superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or if the party holding the exclusivity fails to assure the availability of
sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated.
Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the same indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity
or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan medicinal
product status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, benefits.
Expedited
development and review programs
The
FDA is authorized to expedite the review of BLAs in several ways. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a biologic product
candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a Fast Track product concurrent with or after
the filing of the IND. Biologic products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening
condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the
combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits,
such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track BLA before
the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.
Any
product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs
intended to expedite development and review, such as breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval.
|
●
|
Breakthrough
therapy designation: To qualify for the breakthrough therapy program, product candidates must be intended to treat a serious
or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence must indicate that such product candidates may
demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will
seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product candidate receives: intensive guidance on an efficient drug development
program; intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary
review; and rolling review.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Priority
review: A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, it would
be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious condition
compared to marketed products. The FDA aims to complete its review of priority review applications within six months as opposed
to 10 months for standard review.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Accelerated
approval: Drug or biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening
illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated
approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing
that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit,
or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical
benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative
treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving
accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires
as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.
|
Fast
Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for
approval but may expedite the development or approval process.
Finally,
with passage of the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”) in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate
review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it
is a regenerative medicine therapy (which may include a cell therapy) that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious
or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address
unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions
with the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority
review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.
Post-approval
requirements
Rigorous
and extensive FDA regulation of biologic products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP requirements. Manufacturers
are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and
maintenance of records and documentation. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biologic products include reporting of
cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements,
reporting of adverse events, reporting updated safety and efficacy information and complying with electronic record and signature
requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. If the product is subject to official
lot release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA, together with a release protocol,
showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may
perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. In addition, the FDA conducts
laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of biologic products.
A
sponsor also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer
advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s
approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional
activities involving the Internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory
requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as
possible civil or criminal sanctions. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA
approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional
labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.
Failure
to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after
approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal actions and adverse publicity.
These actions could include refusal to approve pending applications or supplemental applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical
hold, suspension or termination of clinical trial by an IRB, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total
or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines or other monetary penalties, refusals of government contracts,
mandated corrective advertising or communications to healthcare professionals or patients, debarment, restitution, disgorgement
of profits or other civil or criminal penalties.
U.S.
patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity
Depending
upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of product candidates, some of a sponsor’s U.S. patents may be eligible
for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments
permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory
review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from
the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period generally is one-half the time between the effective date
of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application.
Only one patent applicable to an approved biologic product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension
must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The United State Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), in
consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.
Pediatric
exclusivity
Pediatric
exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States that, if granted, provides for the attachment of
an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent
and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond
to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population
studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted.
If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to, and accepted by, the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever
statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection that cover the product are extended by six months. This is
not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot accept or approve a
biosimilar application.
Biosimilars
and exclusivity
The
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (“PPACA”),
created an abbreviated approval pathway for biologic products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed
reference biologic product, referred to as biosimilars. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are
no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product. Interchangeability requires
that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the
same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic
may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative
to exclusive use of the reference biologic.
A
reference biologic is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product. An application
for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following approval of the reference product, and it
may not be approved until 12 years thereafter. These exclusivity provisions only apply to biosimilars—companies that rely
on their own data and file a full BLA may be approved earlier than 12 years.
The
21st Century Cures Act
On
December 13, 2016, President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The Cures Act is designed to modernize and personalize healthcare,
spur innovation and research and streamline the discovery and development of new therapies through increased federal funding of
particular programs. It authorizes increasing funding for the FDA to spend on innovation projects. The new law also amends the
Public Health Service Act to reauthorize and expand funding for the NIH. The Cures Act establishes the NIH Innovation Fund to
pay for the cost of development and implementation of a strategic plan, early stage investigators and research. It also charges
NIH with leading and coordinating expanded pediatric research. Further, the Cures Act directs the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention to expand surveillance of neurological diseases.
With
amendments to the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), Title III of the Cures Act seeks to accelerate
the discovery, development and delivery of new medicines and medical technologies. To that end, the Cures Act reauthorizes for
four years the priority review voucher program for certain drugs intended to treat rare pediatric diseases; creates a new priority
review voucher program for drug applications determined to be material threat medical countermeasure applications; revises the
FDCA to streamline review of combination product applications; requires the FDA to evaluate the potential use of “real world
evidence” to help support approval of new indications for approved drugs; provides a new “limited population”
approval pathway for antibiotic and antifungal drugs intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections; and authorizes
the FDA to designate a drug as a “regenerative advanced therapy,” thereby making it eligible for certain expedited
review and approval designations.
Government
regulation outside of the United States
In
addition to regulations in the United States, sponsors are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing,
among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of biologic products. Because biologically-sourced
raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.
Whether
or not a sponsor obtains FDA approval for a product, a sponsor must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities
in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries
outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application, much like the
IND, prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the European Union, for example, a request for a Clinical Trial Authorization
(“CTA”) must be submitted to the competent regulatory authorities and the competent Ethics Committees in the European
Union Member States in which the clinical trial takes place, much like the FDA and the IRB, respectively. Once the CTA request
is approved in accordance with the European Union and the European Union Member State’s requirements, clinical trial development
may proceed.
The
requirements and processes governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country
to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCPs and the applicable regulatory requirements
and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Failure
to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements may result in, among other things, fines, suspension, variation or withdrawal
of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.
European
Union regulation and exclusivity
To
obtain regulatory approval of an investigational biologic product under European Union regulatory systems, applicants must submit
a marketing authorization application (“MAA”). The grant of marketing authorization in the European Union for products
containing viable human tissues or cells such as gene therapy medicinal products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced
therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly
known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC lays down specific rules concerning the authorization,
supervision and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products and tissue engineered
products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety and efficacy of their products
to the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) which provides an opinion regarding the application for marketing authorization.
The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by EMA.
Innovative
medicinal products are authorized in the European Union based on a full marketing authorization application (as opposed to an
application for marketing authorization that relies on data in the marketing authorization dossier for another, previously approved
medicinal product). Applications for marketing authorization for innovative medicinal products must contain the results of pharmaceutical
tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials conducted with the medicinal product for which marketing authorization is sought.
Innovative medicinal products for which marketing authorization is granted are entitled to eight years of data exclusivity. During
this period, applicants for approval of generics or biosimilars of these innovative products cannot rely on data contained in
the marketing authorization dossier submitted for the innovative medicinal product to support their application. Innovative medicinal
products for which marketing authorization is granted are also entitled to 10 years of market exclusivity. During these 10 years
of market exclusivity, no generic or biosimilar medicinal product may be placed on the European Union market even if a generic
or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted to the competent regulatory authorities in the European Union Member States.
The overall 10-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing
authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation
prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if
a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity and the innovator is able to gain the period of data exclusivity, another
company, nevertheless, could also market another competing medicinal product for the same therapeutic indication if such company
obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical
tests and clinical trials.
Products
receiving orphan designation in the European Union can receive 10 years of market exclusivity. During this 10-year period, the
competent authorities of the European Union Member States and European Commission may not accept applications or grant marketing
authorization for other similar medicinal product for the same orphan indication. There are, however, three exceptions to this
principle. Marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product for the same orphan indication if:
|
●
|
The
second applicant can establish in its application that its medicinal product, although similar to the orphan medicinal product
already authorized, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
The
holder of the marketing authorization for the original orphan medicinal product consents to a second orphan medicinal product
application; or
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
The
holder of the marketing authorization for the original orphan medicinal product cannot supply sufficient quantities of orphan
medicinal product.
|
An
orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the European Union for the conduct of pediatric
trials. The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the
product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation; for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable and no longer
justifies the maintenance of market exclusivity or if the manufacturer cannot produce sufficient quantities to supply the orphan
population.
The
criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the European Union are similar, in principle, to those in
the United States. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers. The
application for orphan medicinal product designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. Orphan
medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval
process.
In
April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (the “Clinical Trials Regulation”), which
is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (the “Clinical Trials Directive”). The new Clinical
Trials Regulation is still pending. Until the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable, all clinical trials performed in
the European Union are required to be conducted in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive, which will be repealed on the
day of entry into application of the Clinical Trial Regulation. It will however still apply three years from that day to (i) clinical
trials applications submitted before the entry into application and (ii) clinical trials applications submitted within one year
after the entry into application if the sponsor opted for the previous system. The Clinical Trial Regulation will overhaul the
current system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. Specifically, the legislation, which will be directly applicable in
all member states, aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. For instance, the legislation
provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of
clinical trial applications.
Other
Healthcare Laws and Regulations
Healthcare
providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and use of pharmaceutical products that
are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with third-party payors, existing or potential customers and referral sources are
subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, and these laws and regulations may constrain
the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which manufacturers market, sell and distribute the products
for which they obtain marketing approval. Such restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations
include the following:
|
●
|
the
federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting,
receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or kind, in exchange for, or to induce, either
the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service for which payment may
be made under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This statute has been interpreted to
apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers, on the one hand, and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers
on the other. The PPACA amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. A person or entity no longer
needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
the
federal false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the civil False Claims Act (the “FCA”), which
prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment
from Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent, or making a false statement to avoid, decrease,
or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion,
also may implicate the FCA. In addition, the PPACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from
a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
the
federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies
for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions,
to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), information related to payments
and other transfers of value to physicians, certain other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment
interests held by physicians and other healthcare providers and their immediate family members;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
the
federal false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or
making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services;
and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
state
and foreign law equivalents of each 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; state laws that require pharmaceutical
companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance
promulgated by the federal government or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and
other potential referral sources; state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and
other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; and state laws governing
the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant
ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.
|
Violation
of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations may result in penalties, including civil and criminal
penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, the exclusion from participation in federal and state
healthcare programs, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and imprisonment.
Furthermore, efforts to ensure that business activities and business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations
can be costly.
Data
Privacy and Security
|
●
|
the
federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”)imposes criminal and civil liability
for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
HIPAA,
as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and its implementing regulations, which
imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the transmission, security and privacy
of protected health information; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
the
General European Data Protection Regulation, which became applicable May 25, 2018, harmonizes data privacy laws across Europe. This
Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to
the transfer of personal data, as well as an individual’s right to the protection of personal data, including medical
information and clinical trial related data.
|
Coverage
and Reimbursement
Significant
uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In
the United States, sales of any product candidates for which regulatory approval for commercial sale is obtained will depend in
part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government
authorities and health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers
and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products and services.
The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting
the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the drug product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products
on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. Additionally, the
containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus
in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing
cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic
products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement
status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement
rates may be implemented in the future.
In
the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed
only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare
the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. EU member states may approve a specific
price for a product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing
the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control company
profits. The downward pressure on health care costs has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected
to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure
that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations may not allow favorable
reimbursement and pricing arrangements.
Health
Reform
The
United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of reform proposals to change the healthcare
system. There is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare
costs, improving quality or expanding access. In the United States, for example, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular
focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected and continues to face major uncertainty due to the status of major
legislative initiatives surrounding healthcare reform.
Additional
Regulation
In
addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These
and other laws govern the use, handling and disposal of various biologic, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes
generated by, operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances,
we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. Equivalent laws have been adopted in other countries that impose similar
obligations.
U.S.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
The
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), prohibits U.S. corporations and individuals from engaging in certain
activities to obtain or retain business abroad or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay,
offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political
party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in an official
capacity. The scope of the FCPA includes interactions with certain healthcare professionals in many countries. Equivalent laws
have been adopted in other foreign countries that impose similar obligations.
Competition
Companies
that are currently engaged in gene therapy or companies not yet focused on developing gene and cell therapies could at any time
decide to develop therapies relevant to our business. Many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners,
have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery
and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of product candidates and commercializing
those product candidates. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining approval for product candidates
and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ product candidates may be more effective, or more effectively
marketed and sold, than any product candidate we may commercialize and may render our treatments obsolete or non-competitive before
we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing any of our product candidates.
Mergers
and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among
a smaller number of our competitors. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and
management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring
technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant
competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.
We
anticipate facing intense and increasing competition as new product candidates enter the market and advanced technologies become
available. We expect any product candidates that we develop and commercialize to compete on the basis of, among other things,
efficacy, safety, convenience of administration and delivery, price, and the availability of reimbursement from government and
other third-party payors.
Our
commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more
effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop.
Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their product candidates more rapidly than we may obtain
approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the
market.
Corporate
Information
Our
principal executive office is located at 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10019. Our telephone
number in New York is (646) 813-4701. We also have manufacturing and laboratory facilities and administrative offices in Cleveland,
Ohio and office facilities in Madrid, Spain.
We
were incorporated in Wyoming in 1974 as Chemex Corporation, and in 1983 we changed our name to Chemex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. We
changed our state of incorporation from Wyoming to Delaware on June 30, 1989. In 1996 we merged with Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
a private Texas corporation, and changed our name to Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On October 24, 2014 we changed our name to PlasmaTech
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. On May 15, 2015 we acquired Abeona Therapeutics LLC and on June 19, 2015 we changed our name to Abeona
Therapeutics Inc.
Suppliers
Some
materials used by us are specialized. We obtain materials from several suppliers based in different countries around the world.
If materials are unavailable from one supplier, we generally have alternate suppliers available.
Employees
As
of March 9, 2020, we had 88 full-time employees. We have never experienced employment-related work stoppages and consider that
we maintain good relations with our personnel. In addition, to complement our internal expertise, we have contracts with scientific
consultants, contract research organizations and university research laboratories that specialize in various aspects of drug development
including clinical development, regulatory affairs, toxicology, process scale-up and preclinical testing.
Web
Availability
We
make available free of charge through our website, www.abeonatherapeutics.com, our annual reports on Form 10-K and other
reports that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as well as certain of our corporate governance
policies, including the charters for the audit, compensation and nominating and corporate governance committees of the Board of
Directors (the “Board”) and our code of ethics, corporate governance guidelines and whistleblower policy. We will
also provide to any person without charge, upon request, a copy of any of the foregoing materials. Any such request must be made
in writing to us at: Abeona Therapeutics Inc. c/o Investor Relations, 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New
York, NY 10019. The SEC’s website, www.sec.gov, contains reports, proxy statements, and other information that we file electronically
with the SEC. The content on any website referred to in this Form 10-K is not incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K unless
expressly noted.
ITEM
1A. RISK FACTORS
Our
business, financial condition, financial results, and future growth prospects are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties,
including those set forth below. The occurrence of any of the following risks could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, financial results, and future growth prospects. Additional risks and uncertainties that are not currently
known to us or that we do not currently believe to be material may also negatively affect our business, financial condition, financial
results, and future growth prospects.
Risks
related to the discovery and development of our product candidates
Our
gene and cell therapy product candidates are based on novel technologies, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost
of product candidate development and subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. Only a few gene therapy products have been approved
in the U.S. and the EU.
We
have concentrated our therapeutic product research and development efforts on our gene and cell therapy platform, and our future
success depends on the successful development of this therapeutic approach. There can be no assurance that any development problems
we experience in the future related to our gene and cell therapy platform will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs,
or that such development problems can be solved. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and commercial-scale
manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies
or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.
In
addition, the clinical study requirements of the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators
use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty
and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours
can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product
candidates. Currently, only a few gene therapy products have been approved in the Western world, including the Spark Therapeutics,
Inc. and AveXis, Inc. gene therapy products, which received approval from the FDA in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Additionally,
GlaxoSmithKline’s Strimvelis® and Novartis’s and Gilead’s CAR-T therapies received approval from
the FDA in 2017. Given the few precedents of approved gene therapy products, it is difficult to determine how long it will take
or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in the United States, the EU or other jurisdictions.
Approvals by the EMA and the European Commission may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval.
Regulatory
requirements governing gene and cell therapy products have evolved and may continue to change in the future. For example, the
FDA has established the Office Tissues and Advanced Therapies (“OTAT”) within CBER to consolidate the review of gene
therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review.
Regulatory
requirements in the United States and in other jurisdictions governing gene therapy products have changed frequently and will
continue to change in the future as scientific knowledge is acquired. The FDA, NIH and the EMA have each expressed interest in
further regulating gene therapy. For example, the FDA has established the Office Tissues and Advanced Therapies within CBER to
consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to
advise CBER on its review. Additionally, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to the development of a gene therapy product.
Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. congressional committees and other governments
or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or
prevent commercialization of some, or all, of our product candidates. These regulatory review agencies, committees and advisory
groups and the new requirements and guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform
additional or larger studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay
or prevent approval and commercialization of these treatment candidates or lead to significant post-approval studies, limitations
or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups
and comply with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development
of our product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to
bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.
We
may encounter substantial delays in our clinical studies, such as clinical holds, or we may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy
to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities.
Before
obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical
studies to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency, and efficacy, of the product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is
expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned
or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing. Events that
may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:
|
●
|
delays
in reaching a consensus with regulatory agencies on study design;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
delays
in obtaining required IRB or Institutional Ethics Committee approval at each clinical study site; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
delays
in recruiting suitable patients to participate in our clinical studies.
|
Delays
in launching clinical trials resulting from FDA or other regulatory actions, such as a clinical hold letter, would delay the commercialization
of our product candidates and our ability to generate revenue, which would have an adverse effect on our business. For example,
in September 2019, we received a clinical hold letter in connection with our Phase III clinical trial for EB-101 stating that
the FDA would not provide approval for us to begin our planned Phase III clinical trial for EB-101 until we submitted additional
data points on transport stability of EB-101 to clinical sites. Although the FDA removed the clinical hold in December 2019 and
provided clearance for us to proceed with our planned Phase III clinical trial, we may encounter similar delays in our clinical
studies in the future.
We
may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical studies, which could delay or prevent clinical studies of our product
candidates.
Identifying
and qualifying patients to participate in clinical studies of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of
our clinical studies depends on the speed at which we can recruit eligible patients to participate in testing our product candidates.
We have experienced delays in some of our clinical studies due to the ultra-rare nature of the diseases we aim to treat, and we
may experience similar delays in the future. If patients are unwilling to participate in our gene and cell therapy studies because
of negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology or gene therapy industries or for other reasons, including competitive
clinical studies for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory
approval of potential products may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product development,
delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of the clinical studies altogether.
We
may not be able to identify, recruit or enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics
to achieve diversity in a study, to complete our clinical studies in a timely manner. Patient enrollment is affected by factors
including:
|
●
|
severity
of the disease under investigation;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
design
of the study protocol;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
size
of the patient population;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
eligibility
criteria for the study in question;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
perceived
risks and benefits of the product candidate under study, including as a result of adverse effects observed in similar or competing
therapies;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
proximity
and availability of clinical study sites for prospective patients;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
availability
of competing therapies and clinical studies;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
efforts
to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical studies;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
patient
referral practices of physicians; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
ability
to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment.
|
Each
of the conditions for which we plan to evaluate our current AAV product candidates are rare genetic disorders with limited patient
pools from which to draw for clinical studies. Further, because newborn screening is generally not performed for MPSIIIA and B
and other diseases we plan to address through gene and cell therapy (e.g., CLN1, retinal disease), and such diseases can be difficult
to diagnose in the absence of a genetic screen, we may have difficulty finding patients who are eligible to participate in our
studies. The eligibility criteria of our clinical studies will further limit the pool of available study participants. Additionally,
the process of finding and diagnosing patients may prove costly.
We
also plan to seek initial marketing approval in the European Union in addition to the U.S. Our ability to successfully initiate,
enroll and complete a clinical study in any foreign country is subject to additional risks unique to conducting business in foreign
countries, such as different standards for the conduct of clinical studies; different laws, medical standards and regulatory requirements;
and the ability to establish or manage relationships with treatment centers, contract research organizations and physicians.
If
we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical studies as planned, we may need to delay,
limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical studies, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business.
In
addition, enrollment into our upcoming Phase III VIITAL™ study for EB-101 may encounter some challenges related to identification
and enrollment of patients with RDEB. Whereas RDEB is a progressive condition diagnosed in early childhood, not all patients may
qualify to participate in our study based on their ability to meet the study inclusion criteria including related to overall medical
condition, type of wounds (recurrent vs. chronic, location, size, etc.), presence of antibodies against Collagen VII, or restrictions
on the ability to travel to study centers. The process for manufacturing EB-101 requires at least two biopsies from an area of
intact skin that must then be shipped to Abeona’s manufacturing facility, posing possible risks of transportation, and ultimately
viability of the specimens. The clinical trial will also require enrolled patients to travel to the clinical trial site for treatment
and follow-up. For individuals with RDEB, traveling can be challenging and pose health risks.
Our
products or product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory
approval or commercialization.
Undesirable
side effects caused by our products or product candidates, including adverse events associated with our product candidates, could
interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory
authorities for any or all targeted indications, and in turn prevent us from commercializing our products or product candidates
and generating revenues from their sale. In addition, if we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by our product
candidates after receipt of marketing approval regulatory authorities may require the addition of restrictive labeling statements.
Regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product. We also may be required to change the way the product is administered,
or additional clinical trials are conducted. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance
of the affected products or product candidate or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing the products
or product candidate, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from its sale or adversely
affect our reputation.
Even
if we complete the necessary preclinical and clinical studies, we cannot predict when or if we will obtain regulatory approval
to commercialize a product candidate or the approval may be for a narrower indication than we expect.
We
cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate.
Even if our product candidates demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical studies, the regulatory agencies may not complete their
review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA
Advisory Committee or other regulatory advisory group or authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition,
we may experience delays or rejections based on additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action,
or changes in regulatory agency policy during the period of product development, clinical studies and the review process. Regulatory
agencies also may approve a treatment candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested or may grant approval subject
to the performance of post-marketing studies. In addition, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary
or desirable for the successful commercialization of our treatment candidates. For example, the development of our product candidates
for pediatric use is an important part of our current business strategy, and if we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for
the desired age ranges, our business may suffer.
Even
if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, our products will remain subject to regulatory scrutiny.
Even
if we obtain regulatory approval in a jurisdiction, regulatory authorities may still impose significant restrictions on the indicated
uses or marketing of our product candidates or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies, post-market
surveillance or patient or drug restrictions. For example, the FDA typically advises that patients treated with gene therapy undergo
follow-up observations for potential adverse events for a 15-year period. Additionally, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated
to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. The holder of an approved
BLA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product
labeling or manufacturing process. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review,
in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws.
In
addition, product manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections
by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with GMP and adherence to commitments made in the BLA. If we or a regulatory
agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or
problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions relative to that product
or the manufacturing facility, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing.
If
we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any of our product candidates, a regulatory agency
may:
|
●
|
issue
a warning letter asserting that we are in violation of the law;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
seek
an injunction or impose civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
suspend
or withdraw regulatory approval;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
suspend
any ongoing clinical studies;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
refuse
to approve a pending marketing application, such as a BLA or supplements to a BLA submitted by us;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
seize
product; or
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
refuse
to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts.
|
Any
government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and
could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize
our product candidates and generate revenues.
Business
or economic disruptions or global health concerns could seriously harm our development efforts and increase our costs and expenses.
Global
business or economic disruptions could adversely affect our ongoing or planned research and development activities. For example,
in December 2019, an outbreak of a novel strain of coronavirus originated in Wuhan, China, and has since spread to a number of
other countries, including the United States. To date, this outbreak has already resulted in extended shutdowns of certain businesses
in China, Europe and the United States. Global health concerns, such as the coronavirus, could also result in social, economic,
and labor instability in the countries in which we or the third parties with whom we engage operate. We cannot presently predict
the scope and severity of any potential business shutdowns or disruptions, but if we or any of the third parties with whom we
engage, including suppliers, clinical trial sites, regulators and other third parties with whom we conduct business, were to experience
shutdowns or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned
could be materially and negatively affect. More specifically, we may experience disruptions that could severely impact our business,
supply chain, manufacturing operations, clinical trials and pre-clinical studies, including:
|
●
|
interruption
of key clinical trial activities, including limitations on travel imposed or recommended
by federal or state governments, employers and others;
|
|
●
|
delays
or inability to obtain raw material or ingredients;
|
|
●
|
delays
or difficulties in enrolling patients in our clinical trials;
|
|
●
|
delays
or difficulties in clinical site initiation, including difficulties in recruiting clinical
site investigators and clinical site staff;
|
|
●
|
delays
or difficulties in manufacturing clinical drug material;
|
|
●
|
diversion
of healthcare resources away from the conduct of clinical trials, including the diversion
of hospitals serving as our clinical trial sites and hospital staff supporting the conduct
of our clinical trials; and
|
|
●
|
limitations
in employee resources that would otherwise be focused on the conduct of our manufacturing
operations, clinical trials and preclinical studies, including because of sickness of
employees or their families or the desire of employees to avoid contact with large groups
of people.
|
Risks
related to manufacturing
We
could experience production problems in our manufacturing facilities that result in delays in our development or commercialization
programs or otherwise adversely affect our business.
Several
factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages
or contamination, natural disasters, public health emergencies such as the coronavirus, disruption in utility services, human
error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers. Our products and product candidates require processing steps that are
more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and
chemical properties of a biologic such as ours generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product
may not be sufficient to ensure that the product will perform in the intended manner.
There
are several risks specific to the manufacturing process for EB-101 which require close attention. As an autologous product there
are challenges associated with viability of biopsies as an incoming material. Due to the fragility of RDEB skin and site of the
biopsy, initiation of autologous keratinocyte growth and expansion can be challenging or may be extended out of the scheduled
timing. The other concern during manufacturing is slowing of cell proliferation rate resulting in extended manufacturing time.
If pre-release criteria are not met the production process should be stopped for this batch of cells and a new biopsy must be
obtained. If release criteria are out of range, epidermal sheets should be discarded and repeated manufacturing must take place.
We
currently do not have a backup manufacturer clinical trial supply for EB-101. An alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified,
through regulatory filings, which could result in further delay. The regulatory authorities also may require additional clinical
trials if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and
could result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.
Accordingly,
we employ multiple steps to control our manufacturing process to assure that the products or product candidate is made strictly
and consistently in compliance with the process. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal
process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability
claims or insufficient inventory. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical grade materials
that meet FDA, EU or other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs.
In addition, FDA, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product
together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, FDA, EMA or other foreign
regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in
the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the
product that could result in lot failures or product recalls for approved and marketed products.
Lot
failures or product recalls could cause us to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise
harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We also may encounter problems hiring and retaining
the experienced specialist scientific, quality control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing process,
which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including
larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development
programs. Problems in our manufacturing process including in internal and external facilities providing supply necessary for manufacturing,
also could restrict our ability to meet clinical trial supply demand, and eventually market demand for any product candidates
for which we may receive marketing approval. Disruptions in our manufacturing process may delay or disrupt our commercialization
efforts.
If
we or any of our vendors, contract laboratories or suppliers are found to be out of compliance with cGMP, we may experience delays
or disruptions in manufacturing while we work with these third parties to remedy the violation or while we work to identify suitable
replacement vendors, contract laboratories or suppliers.
To
obtain regulatory approval for commercial manufacturing, we will need to continue to ensure that all of our processes, methods
and equipment are compliant with cGMP and perform extensive audits of vendors, contract laboratories and suppliers. The cGMP requirements
govern quality control of the manufacturing process and documentation policies and procedures. Complying with cGMP requires us
to expend time, money and effort in production, record keeping and quality control to assure that the product meets applicable
specifications and other requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we would be subject to possible regulatory
action and may not be permitted to sell any products that we may develop.
We
may rely on third parties to conduct aspects of our product manufacturing, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.
We may rely on third parties to produce certain materials for our product candidates and, therefore, we can control only certain
aspects of their activities. We have manufacturing agreements with third parties that provide for, among other things, production
of product candidates for our current and future early stage clinical trials. Under certain circumstances, the other party is
entitled to terminate its arrangement with us. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay our product development
activities. Our reliance on third parties for certain manufacturing activities will reduce our control over these activities but
will not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations. If a third party does not successfully
carry out its contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or manufacture our product candidates in accordance with regulatory
requirements, or if there are disagreements between us and any such third party, we will not be able to complete, or may be delayed
in completing, the preclinical studies required to support future IND submissions and the clinical trials required for approval
of our product candidates. In such instances, we may need to enter into an appropriate replacement third-party relationship, which
may not be readily available or on acceptable terms, which would cause additional delay or increased expense prior to the approval
of our product candidates and would thereby have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations
and prospects. Our reliance on these third parties entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product
candidates ourselves, including:
|
●
|
reduced
control for certain aspects of manufacturing activities;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
termination
or nonrenewal of manufacturing and service agreements with third parties in a manner or at a time that is costly or damaging
to us; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
disruptions
to the operations of our third-party manufacturers and service providers caused by conditions unrelated to our business or
operations, including the bankruptcy of the manufacturer or service provider.
|
Any
of these events could lead to clinical trial delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval or impact our ability to successfully
commercialize future product candidates. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action or action of equivalent competent
authorities in foreign jurisdictions, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of product manufacture.
Failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements could cause us to suspend production or put in place costly or time-consuming
remedial measures.
If
any inspection or audit by regulatory authorities identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations, or if a violation
of product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, the relevant regulatory
authority may require remedial measures that may be costly or time-consuming to implement and that may include the temporary or
permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a manufacturing facility.
Regulatory
authorities may inspect or audit the manufacturing facilities for our products and product candidates at any time. Any such remedial
measures imposed upon us could materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If we fail
to comply with applicable cGMP regulations, FDA and foreign regulatory authorities could impose regulatory sanctions including,
among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new product candidate or suspension or revocation of a pre-existing
approval. Such an occurrence may cause our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects to be materially
harmed. Additionally, if supply from our facility is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in commercial supply
of any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, and in clinical supply for our product candidates.
If
we, our collaborators, or any third-party manufacturers we engage fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and
regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.
We,
our collaborators, and any third-party manufacturers we engage are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and
regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, manufacture,
transportation and disposal of, and exposure to, hazardous materials and wastes, as well as laws and regulations relating to occupational
health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biologic and radioactive
materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of
these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination
or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability
could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.
Although
we maintain general liability insurance and workers’ compensation insurance for certain costs and expenses, we may incur
due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance
may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic
tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biologic, hazardous or radioactive materials.
In
addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations,
which have tended to become more stringent over time. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development
or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other
sanctions or liabilities, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Risks
related to our reliance on third-parties
We
expect to rely on third parties to conduct some or all aspects of our viral vector production, drug product manufacturing, research
and preclinical and clinical testing, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.
We
do not expect to independently conduct all aspects of our viral vector production, drug product manufacturing and distribution,
research and preclinical and clinical testing. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties with respect
to these matters. In some cases, these third parties are academic, research or similar institutions that may not apply the same
quality control protocols utilized in certain commercial settings.
Our
reliance on these third parties for research and development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not
relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations and study protocols. For example, for product
candidates that we develop and commercialize on our own, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our IND-enabling studies
and clinical studies are conducted in accordance with the study plan and protocols, and that our viral vectors and drug products
are manufactured in accordance with GMP as applied in the relevant jurisdictions.
If
these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, conduct our studies in accordance
with regulatory requirements or our stated study plans and protocols, or manufacture our viral vectors and drug products in accordance
with GMP, we will not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the preclinical and clinical studies and manufacturing
process validation activities required to support future IND, MAA and BLA submissions and approval of our product candidates.
Any
of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements,
it could delay our product development activities.
Any
of these events could lead to clinical study delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval or impact our ability to successfully
commercialize future products. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including injunction, recall, seizure or
total or partial suspension of production.
Our
reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover
them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.
Because
we rely on third parties to manufacture our vectors and our product candidates, and because we collaborate with various organizations
and academic institutions on the advancement of our gene and cell therapy platform, we must, at times, share trade secrets with
them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material
transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators,
advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically
limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets. Despite the contractual
provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases
the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others,
or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how
and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our
competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.
In
addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants to publish
data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that
we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights
arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we
may share these rights with other parties. We also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share
trade secrets under the terms of our research and development partnerships or similar agreements. Despite our efforts to protect
our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development
or publication of information including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or otherwise protected rights
at the time of publication. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have
an adverse impact on our business.
Risks
associated with commercializing our product candidates
Our
drug candidates are subject to the risks of failure inherent in the development of pharmaceutical products based on new technologies,
and our failure to develop safe commercially viable drugs would severely limit our ability to become profitable or to achieve
significant revenues.
We
may be unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates if some or all of our product candidates are found to be unsafe
or ineffective or otherwise fail to meet applicable regulatory standards or receive necessary regulatory clearances. Additionally,
our product candidates may be deemed too difficult to develop into commercially viable drugs. We may encounter difficulty in manufacturing
or marketing our product candidates on a large scale, and proprietary rights of third parties preclude us from marketing our drug
candidates. Moreover, competitors may be able to market superior or equivalent drugs successfully. Failure to successfully commercialize
our product candidates would have a material adverse effect on our business.
We
may be unable to successfully develop, market, or commercialize our products or our product candidates without establishing new
relationships and maintaining current relationships and our ability to successfully commercialize, and market our product candidates
could be limited if a number of these existing relationships are terminated.
Our
strategy for the research, development and commercialization of our potential pharmaceutical products may require us to enter
into various arrangements with corporate and academic collaborators, licensors, licensees and others, in addition to our existing
relationships with other parties. Specifically, we may seek to joint venture, sublicense or enter into other marketing arrangements
with parties that have an established marketing capability, or we may choose to pursue the commercialization of such products
on our own. We may, however, be unable to establish such additional collaborative arrangements, license agreements, or marketing
agreements as we may deem necessary to develop, commercialize and market our potential pharmaceutical products on acceptable terms.
Furthermore, we maintain and establish arrangements or relationships with third parties, our business may depend upon the successful
performance by these third parties of their responsibilities under those arrangements and relationships. If we are unwilling or
unable to perform our obligations under any license or collaboration arrangement, a third party may have the right to terminate
such arrangement with us.
We
are subject to extensive governmental regulation, which increases our cost of doing business and may affect our ability to commercialize
any new products that we may develop.
The
FDA and comparable agencies in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the introduction of pharmaceutical products
through lengthy and detailed laboratory, preclinical and clinical testing procedures and other costly and time-consuming procedures
to establish safety and efficacy. All of our drugs and drug candidates require receipt and maintenance of governmental approvals
for commercialization. Preclinical and clinical trials and manufacturing of our drug candidates will be subject to the rigorous
testing and approval processes of the FDA and corresponding foreign regulatory authorities. Satisfaction of these requirements
typically takes a significant number of years and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product.
Due
to the time-consuming and uncertain nature of the drug candidate development process and the governmental approval process described
above, we cannot assure you when we, independently or with our collaborative partners, might submit an NDA for FDA or other regulatory
review. Further, our ability to commence and/or complete development projects will be subject to our ability to raise enough funds
to pay for the development costs of these projects. Government regulation also affects the manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical
products. Government regulations may delay marketing of our potential drugs for a considerable or indefinite period of time, impose
costly procedural requirements upon our activities and furnish a competitive advantage to larger companies or companies more experienced
in regulatory affairs. Delays in obtaining governmental regulatory approval could adversely affect our marketing as well as our
ability to generate significant revenues from commercial sales.
Our
drug candidates may not receive FDA or other regulatory approvals on a timely basis or at all. Moreover, if regulatory approval
of a drug candidate is granted, such approval may impose limitations on the indicated use for which such drug may be marketed.
Even if we obtain initial regulatory approvals for our drug candidates, our drugs and our manufacturing facilities would be subject
to continual review and periodic inspection, and later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug, manufacturer or facility
may result in restrictions on the marketing or manufacture of such drug, including withdrawal of the drug from the market. The
FDA and other regulatory authorities stringently apply regulatory standards and failure to comply with regulatory standards can,
among other things, result in fines, denial or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls or seizures, operating restrictions
and criminal prosecution.
We
may incur substantial product liability expenses due to the use or misuse of our products for which we may be unable to obtain
insurance coverage.
Our
business exposes us to potential liability risks that are inherent in the testing, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical
products. These risks will expand with respect to our drug candidates, if any, that receive regulatory approval for commercial
sale and we may face substantial liability for damages in the event of adverse side effects, including injury or death, or product
defects identified with any of our products that are used in clinical tests or marketed to the public. Product liability insurance
for the biotechnology industry is generally expensive, if available at all, and as a result, we may be unable to obtain insurance
coverage at acceptable costs or in a sufficient amount in the future, if at all. We may be unable to satisfy any claims for which
we may be held liable as a result of the use or misuse of products which we developed, manufactured or sold and any such product
liability claim could adversely affect our business, operating results or financial condition.
Intense
competition may limit our ability to successfully develop and market commercial products.
The
biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change.
Our competitors in the U.S. and elsewhere are numerous and include, among others, major multinational pharmaceutical and chemical
companies, specialized biotechnology firms and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have and
employ greater financial and other resources, including larger research and development, marketing and manufacturing organizations.
As a result, our competitors may successfully develop technologies and drugs that are more effective or less costly than any that
we are developing, or which would render our technology and future products obsolete and noncompetitive.
In
addition, some of our competitors have greater experience than we do in conducting preclinical and clinical trials and obtaining
FDA and other regulatory approvals. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA or other regulatory approvals for
drug candidates more rapidly than we can. Companies that complete clinical trials, obtain required regulatory agency approvals
and commence commercial sale of their drugs before their competitors may achieve a significant competitive advantage. Drugs resulting
from our research and development efforts or from our joint efforts with collaborative partners therefore may not be commercially
competitive with our competitors’ existing products or products under development.
Our
ability to successfully develop and commercialize our drug candidates will substantially depend upon the availability of reimbursement
funds for the costs of the resulting drugs and related treatments.
Market
acceptance and sales of our product candidates may depend on coverage and reimbursement policies and health care reform measures.
Decisions about formulary coverage as well as levels at which government authorities and third-party payers, such as private health
insurers and health maintenance organizations, reimburse patients for the price they pay for our products as well as levels at
which these payors pay directly for our products, where applicable, could affect whether we are able to commercialize these products.
We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any of these products. Also, we cannot be sure that coverage or reimbursement
amounts will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our products. We have not commenced efforts to have our product candidates
reimbursed by government or third-party payors. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or are available only at limited
levels, we may not be able to commercialize our products. In recent years, officials have made numerous proposals to change the
health care system in the U.S. These proposals include measures that would limit or prohibit payments for certain medical treatments
or subject the pricing of drugs to government control. In addition, in many foreign countries, particularly the countries of the
European Union, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to government control. If our products are or become subject to government
regulation that limits or prohibits payment for our products, or that subjects the price of our products to governmental control,
we may not be able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our products.
As
a result of legislative proposals and the trend towards managed health care in the U.S., third-party payors are increasingly attempting
to contain health care costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement of new drugs. They may also impose strict
prior authorization requirements and/or refuse to provide any coverage of uses of approved products for medical indications other
than those for which the FDA has granted market approvals. As a result, significant uncertainty exists as to whether and how much
third-party payors will reimburse patients for their use of newly-approved drugs, which in turn will put pressure on the pricing
of drugs.
The
market may not accept any pharmaceutical products that we develop, thereby materially impairing our ability to generate revenue
from such products.
The
products that we are attempting to develop may compete with a number of well-established drugs manufactured and marketed by major
pharmaceutical companies. The degree of market acceptance of any drugs developed by us will depend on a number of factors, including
the establishment and demonstration of the clinical efficacy and safety of our drug candidates, the potential advantage of our
drug candidates over existing therapies and the reimbursement policies of government and third-party payers. Physicians, patients
or the medical community in general may not accept or use any drugs that we may develop independently or with our collaborative
partners and if they do not, our business could suffer.
Adverse
public perception of gene therapy products may negatively affect demand for, or regulatory approval of, our product candidates.
Our
product candidates involve altering genes, and the clinical and commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part
on public acceptance of the use of gene altering therapies for the treatment of genetic diseases. Public attitude may be influenced
by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, unethical, or immoral, and, as a result, our product candidates may not gain the acceptance
of the public or the medical community. Negative public reaction to gene therapy in general could result in greater government
regulation and stricter labeling requirements of gene therapy products, including any of our product candidates, and could cause
a decrease in the demand for any products we may develop. Adverse public opinion also may adversely affect our ability to enroll
patients in clinical trials.
Healthcare
reform measures could hinder or prevent our product candidates’ commercial success.
Any
government-adopted reform measures could adversely affect the pricing of healthcare products and services in the U.S. or internationally
and the amount of reimbursement available from governmental agencies or other third-party payors. The continuing efforts of the
U.S. and foreign governments, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of health care services to contain
or reduce health care costs may adversely affect our ability to set prices for our products which we believe are fair, and our
ability to generate revenues and achieve and maintain profitability.
New
laws, regulations and judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws, regulations and decisions, that relate to healthcare
availability, methods of delivery or payment for products and services, or sales, marketing or pricing, may limit our potential
revenue, and we may need to revise our research and development programs. The pricing and reimbursement environment may change
in the future and become more challenging due to several reasons, including policies advanced by the current executive administration
in the U.S., new healthcare legislation or fiscal challenges faced by government health administration authorities. Specifically,
in both the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the
health care system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably.
We
also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative
or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may affect
our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number
of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage
in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review
and approval of marketing applications. An under-staffed FDA could result in delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its
ability to review submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements
in a timely fashion or at all. Moreover, on January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order, applicable to all executive
agencies, including the FDA, which requires that for each notice of proposed rulemaking or final regulation to be issued in fiscal
year 2017, the agency shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, unless prohibited by law. These requirements
are referred to as the “two-for-one” provisions. This Executive Order includes a budget neutrality provision that
requires the total incremental cost of all new regulations in the 2017 fiscal year, including repealed regulations, to be no greater
than zero, except in limited circumstances. For fiscal years 2018 and beyond, the Executive Order requires agencies to identify
regulations to offset any incremental cost of a new regulation and approximate the total costs or savings associated with each
new regulation or repealed regulation. In interim guidance issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB
on February 2, 2017, the administration indicates that the “two-for-one” provisions may apply not only to agency regulations,
but also to significant agency guidance documents. In addition, on February 24, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order
directing each affected agency to designate an agency official as a “Regulatory Reform Officer” and establish a “Regulatory
Reform Task Force” to implement the two-for-one provisions and other previously issued executive orders relating to the
review of federal regulations, however it is difficult to predict how these requirements will be implemented, and the extent to
which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints
on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively
impacted.
We
may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal, state, and foreign healthcare laws and regulations, including fraud and abuse
laws, false claims laws and health information privacy and security laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied,
with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.
If
we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our operations
will be directly, or indirectly through our prescribers, customers and purchasers, subject to various federal and state laws and
regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal false claims act,
and the Physician Payments Sunshine Act and regulations. These laws will impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing
and educational programs. In addition, we may be subject to data privacy laws by both the federal government and the states in
which we conduct our business. Such laws that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which
we conduct our operations include, but are not limited to:
|
●
|
the
federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting,
receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly
or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, recommendation,
leasing or furnishing of, an item or service reimbursable under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid
programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand,
and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Further, the Affordable Care Act amended the intent requirement
of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific
intent to violate it;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
the
federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the civil False Claims Act, which
prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment
or approval from Medicare, Medicaid or other government payors that are false or fraudulent, or making a false statement to
avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The Affordable Care Act provided and recent
government cases against pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers support the view that federal Anti-Kickback Statute
violations and certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may implicate the civil False Claims Act;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
HIPAA
which created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit a person from knowingly and willfully executing or attempting
to execute a scheme or from making false or fraudulent statements to defraud any healthcare benefit program, regardless of
the payor (e.g., public or private);
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
HIPAA,
as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”) and its implementing
regulations, and as amended again by the final HIPAA omnibus rule, Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement,
and Breach Notification Rules Under HITECH and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to HIPAA,
published in January 2013, which imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually
identifiable health information without appropriate authorization by entities subject to the rule, such as health plans, health
care clearinghouses and health care providers;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
federal
transparency laws, including the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, that requires
certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid,
or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to CMS information related
to payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests
held by physicians and their immediate family members, by the 90th day of each subsequent calendar year, and disclosure
of such information is made by CMS on a publicly available website; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
state
and/or foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws that may
apply to arrangements and claims involving health care items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors;
state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians
and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with
the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the
federal government; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances,
many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts
in certain circumstances, such as specific disease states.
|
We
are subject to extensive laws and regulations related to data privacy, and our failure to comply with these laws and regulations
could harm our business.
Numerous
foreign, federal and state laws and regulations govern collection, dissemination, use and confidentiality of personally identifiable
health information, including state privacy and confidentiality laws (including state laws requiring disclosure of breaches),
HIPAA and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). These laws and regulations are increasing
in complexity and number and may change frequently and sometimes conflict.
HIPAA
establishes a set of national privacy and security standards for the protection of individually identifiable health information,
including protected health information (“PHI”), by health plans, certain healthcare clearinghouses and healthcare
providers that submit certain covered transactions electronically, or covered entities, and their “business associates,”
which are persons or entities that perform certain services for, or on behalf of, a covered entity that involve creating, receiving,
maintaining or transmitting PHI. While we are not currently a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA, we may receive
identifiable information from these entities. Failure to receive this information properly could subject us to HIPAA’s criminal
penalties, which may include fines up to $250,000 per violation and/or imprisonment.
GDPR
imposes numerous requirements on entities that process personal data in the context of an establishment in the European Economic
Area (“EEA”) or that process the personal data of data subjects who are located in the EEA. These requirements include,
for example, establishing a basis for processing, providing notice to data subjects, developing procedures to vindicate expanded
data subject rights, implementing appropriate technical and organizational measures to safeguard personal data, and complying
with restrictions on the cross-border transfer of personal data from the EEA to countries that the European Union does not consider
to have in place adequate data protection legislation, such as the United States. GDPR additionally establishes heightened obligations
for entities that process “special categories” of personal data, such as health data. Nearly all clinical trials involve
the processing of these “special categories” of personal data, and thus processing of personal data collected during
the course of clinical trials is subject to heightened protections under GDPR.
Moreover,
California recently adopted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), which went into effect in January
2020. The CCPA has been characterized as the first “GDPR-like” privacy statute to be enacted in the United States
because it mirrors a number of the key provisions of the GDPR. The CCPA establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses
in the State of California, by creating an expanded definition of personal information, establishing new data privacy rights for
consumers imposing special rules on the collection of consumer data from minors, and creating a new and potentially severe statutory
damages framework for violations of the CCPA and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices
to prevent data breaches.
The
legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data security continues to evolve, and there has been an increasing focus
on privacy and data security issues which may affect our business. Failure to comply with current and future laws and regulations
could result in government enforcement actions (including the imposition of significant penalties), criminal and/or civil liability
for us and our officers and directors, private litigation and/or adverse publicity that negatively affects our business.
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 that of our suppliers and business partners, as well as personally identifiable information of clinical trial
participants and employees. Similarly, our business partners and third-party providers possess certain of our sensitive data.
The secure maintenance of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. Despite our security measures,
our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance
or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly
disclosed, lost or stolen. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a disruption
of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information
or other similar disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result
in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent
that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure
of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, our competitive position could be harmed, and the further
development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.
Our
business could suffer if we lose the services of, or fail to attract, key personnel.
We
depend highly upon the efforts of our senior management. The loss of the services of these individuals could delay or prevent
the achievement of our research, development, marketing, or product commercialization objectives. We do not have employment contracts
with our other key personnel. We do not maintain any “key-man” insurance policies on any of our key employees and
we do not intend to obtain such insurance. In addition, due to the specialized scientific nature of our business, we are highly
dependent upon our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific and technical personnel and consultants. In view of the
stage of our development and our research and development programs, we have restricted our hiring to research scientists, consultants
and a small administrative staff and we have made only limited investments in manufacturing, production, sales or regulatory compliance
resources. There is intense competition among major pharmaceutical and chemical companies, specialized biotechnology firms and
universities and other research institutions for qualified personnel in the areas of our activities, however, and we may be unsuccessful
in attracting and retaining these personnel.
Recently-announced departures among
senior management and members of our Board of Directors could adversely affect our business, strategy, and prospects, including
by requiring us to incur additional expenses for recruitment initiatives and expend resources to ensure a smooth transition.
As previously announced, Steven H.
Rouhandeh, our Executive Chairman, has announced that he will step down as Executive Chairman and will retain a seat on the
Board, while Mark J. Alvino and Richard Van Duyne will exit the Board. Mr. Rouhandeh’s departure as Executive Chairman
will be effective March 31, 2020. Moreover, Timothy J. Miller resigned as our President and Chief Scientific Officer
effective on January 10, 2020 and Christine Silverstein provided notice of her resignation as our Chief Financial Officer on
March 10, 2020, effective March 31, 2020. Ms. Silverstein has agreed to provide transitional support services through June 30,
2020. The loss of Messrs. Rouhandeh, Miller, Alvino, and Van Duyne and Ms. Silverstein from their respective positions could
adversely affect our business, strategy, and prospects.
Trends
toward managed health care and downward price pressures on medical products and services may limit our ability to profitably sell
any drugs that we may develop.
Lower
prices for pharmaceutical products may result from:
●
|
third-party-payers’
increasing challenges to the prices charged for medical products and services;
|
|
|
●
|
the
trend toward managed health care in the U.S. and the concurrent growth of HMOs and similar organizations that can control
or significantly influence the purchase of healthcare services and products; and
|
|
|
●
|
legislative
proposals to reform healthcare or reduce government insurance programs.
|
The
cost containment measures that healthcare providers are instituting, including practice protocols and guidelines and clinical
pathways, and the effect of any healthcare reform, could limit our ability to profitably sell any drugs that we may successfully
develop. Moreover, any future legislation or regulation, if any, relating to the healthcare industry or third-party coverage and
reimbursement, may cause our business to suffer.
Risks
related to our intellectual property
Our
rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates are subject to, in part, the terms and conditions of licenses granted
to us by others.
We
rely upon licenses to certain patent rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the
development of our technology and products, including technology related to our manufacturing process and our product candidates.
These and other licenses may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields
of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and products in the future. As a
result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products in territories included
in all of our licenses. These licenses may also require us to grant back certain rights to licensors and to pay certain amounts
relating to sublicensing patent and other rights under the agreement.
In
some circumstances, particularly in-licenses with academic institutions, we may not have the right to control the preparation,
filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering in-licensed technologies. Therefore, in those
cases we cannot be certain that these patents and applications will be prosecuted, maintained and enforced in a manner consistent
with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to maintain such patents, or lose rights to those patents or patent
applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize any of our products
that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected. In certain circumstances, we have or may license technology
from third parties on a non-exclusive basis. In such instances, other licensees may have the right to enforce our licensed patents
in their respective fields, without our oversight or control. Those other licensees may choose to enforce our licensed patents
in a way that harms our interest, for example, by advocating for claim interpretations or agreeing on invalidity positions that
conflict with our positions or our interest. In addition to the foregoing, the risks associated with patent rights that we license
from third parties will also apply to patent rights we may own in the future.
Further,
in many of our license agreements we are responsible for bringing any actions against any third party for infringing the patents
we have licensed. Certain of our license agreements also require us to meet development milestones to maintain the license, including
establishing a set timeline for developing and commercializing products and minimum yearly diligence obligations in developing
and commercializing the product. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:
|
●
|
the
scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
the
extent to which our technology and processes infringe intellectual property rights of the licensor that are not subject to
the licensing agreement;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
the
sublicensing of patent and other rights under our collaborative development relationships;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
our
diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;
|
|
●
|
the
inventorship or ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by
our licensors and us and our partners; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
the
priority of invention of patented technology.
|
If
any dispute over in-licensed intellectual property prevents or impairs our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements
on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.
If
we fail to comply with our obligations under these license agreements, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, the licensor may have
the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to develop, manufacture, or market products covered by
the license or may face other penalties under the agreements. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our
rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms or
cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology.
Furthermore,
to the extent that the research resulting in certain of our licensed patent rights and technology was funded by the U.S. government,
the government may have certain rights, or march-in rights, to such patent rights and technology. When new technologies are developed
with U.S. government funding, the U.S. government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive,
royalty-free license authorizing the U.S. government, or a third party on its behalf, to use the invention for non-commercial
purposes. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in
rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The U.S. government can exercise its march-in rights if it
determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because
action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations or to give preference to
U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying
such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the government, or a third party on its behalf, of such rights could harm
our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
If
we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our product candidates and technology, or if the scope of the patent
protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar
or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our products and technology may be adversely affected.
Our
success depends, in large part, on our and our licensors’ ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United
States and other countries with respect to our proprietary product candidates and manufacturing technology. We and our licensors
have sought, and we intend to seek in the future, to protect our proprietary positions by filing patent applications in the United
States and abroad related to many of our novel technologies and product candidates that are important to our business.
The
patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not have and may not in the future be able to
file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely
manner. For example, in some cases, the work of certain academic researchers in the gene therapy field has entered the public
domain, which may compromise our ability to obtain patent protection for certain inventions related to or building upon such prior
work. Consequently, we will not be able to obtain any such patents to prevent others from using our technology for, and developing
and marketing competing products to treat, these indications. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects
of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.
The
patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual
questions and has, in recent years, been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability
and commercial value of our and our licensors’ patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications
may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or product candidates or which effectively prevent others
from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates. In particular, during prosecution of any patent application,
the issuance of any patents based on the application may depend upon our ability to generate additional preclinical or clinical
data that support the patentability of our proposed claims. We may not be able to generate sufficient additional data on a timely
basis, or at all. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries
may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our and our licensors’ patent protection.
We
may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates. Publications
of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and
other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all.
Therefore,
we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any owned or any licensed patents or pending patent
applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Databases for patents and publications,
and methods for searching them, are inherently limited, so it is not practical to review and know the full scope of all issued
and pending patent applications. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our and our
licensed patent rights are uncertain.
Even
if the patent applications we license or may own in the future do issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide
us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us or otherwise provide us with
any competitive advantage. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar
or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.
The
issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged
in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent
claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing
similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates.
Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting
such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property
may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.
Our
intellectual property licenses with third parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could narrow
the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase our financial or other obligations to
our licensors.
The
agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions
in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement
that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology
or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could harm
our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
We
may not be successful in obtaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.
We
currently have rights to certain intellectual property, through licenses from third parties, to develop our product candidates.
Because our programs may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business likely will depend,
in part, on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any
compositions, methods of use, processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary
for our product candidates. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and
several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we
may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources
and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor
may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property
rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.
We
sometimes collaborate with non-profit and academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written
agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the
institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate
a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution
may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to develop our program.
If
we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing
intellectual property rights we have, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our product
candidates or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be
feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the
affected product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.
Obtaining
and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other
requirements imposed by government patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance
with these requirements.
Periodic
maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be
paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our licensed patents
and/or applications and any patent rights we may own in the future. We generally rely on our outside counsel or our licensing
partners to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government patent agencies require
compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process.
We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply and we are also dependent on our licensors to take the
necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. In many cases, an inadvertent
lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however,
in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete
loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market
and this circumstance could harm our business.
We
may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.
Filing,
prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive,
and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than in the United States.
In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and
state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all
countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States
or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to
develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection,
but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or
other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.
Many
companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions.
The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade
secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it
difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights
generally. For example, an April 2014 report from the Office of the United States Trade Representative identified a number of
countries, including India and China, where challenges to the procurement and enforcement of patent rights have been reported.
Several countries, including India and China, have been listed in the report every year since 1989. Proceedings to enforce our
patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects
of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk
of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate,
and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our
intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual
property that we develop or license.
Issued
patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court. We may not be able to
protect our trade secrets in court.
If
we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product
candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid or unenforceable. In patent
litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for
a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness,
lack of written description or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected
with prosecution of the patent withheld information material to patentability from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement,
during prosecution. Third parties also may raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even
outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, inter partes review and equivalent
proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Such proceedings could result in the revocation or cancellation of or amendment to our patents
in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability
is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior
art, of which the patent examiner and we or our licensing partners were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail
on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we could lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection
on one or more of our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could harm our business.
In
addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary
know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other
elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology
that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. Some courts inside and outside the United
States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in
part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, collaborators, contractors,
and other third-parties. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had
access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality
of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information
technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures
may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known
or be independently discovered by competitors.
Third-parties
may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would
be uncertain and could harm our business.
Our
commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our
product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights and intellectual property of
third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and complex litigation regarding
patents and other intellectual property rights. We may become party to, or threatened with, infringement litigation claims regarding
our product candidates and technology, including claims from competitors or from non-practicing entities that have no relevant
product revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may have no deterrent effect. Moreover, we may become party to, or be
threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our product candidates
and technology, including interference proceedings, post grant review and inter partes review before the USPTO or foreign
patent offices. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted
in the future, regardless of their merit. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce
or to otherwise assert their patent rights against us. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent
jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could adversely affect our
ability to commercialize our product candidates or any other of our product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted
third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to
overcome a statutory presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to prove by clear and convincing evidence
the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the
claims of any such U.S. patent. Similar challenges exist in other jurisdictions. If we are found to infringe a third-party’s
valid and enforceable intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third-party to continue
developing, manufacturing and marketing our product candidates and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required
license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby
giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make
substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and
commercializing the infringing technology or product candidates. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including
treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property
right. A finding of infringement could prevent us from manufacturing and commercializing our product candidates or force us to
cease some of our business operations, which could harm our business. In addition, we may be forced to redesign our product candidates,
seek new regulatory approvals, and indemnify third parties pursuant to contractual agreements. Claims that we have misappropriated
the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business, reputation,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Intellectual
property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.
Competitors
may infringe our intellectual property rights or the intellectual property rights of our licensing partners, or we may be required
to defend against claims of infringement. To counter infringement or unauthorized use claims or to defend against claims of infringement
can be expensive and time consuming. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual
property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their
normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim
proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial
adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses
and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may
not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors
may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial
resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation
of patent litigation or other proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.
We
may be subject to claims asserting that our employees, consultants or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade
secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.
Many
of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or
pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants
and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that
these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information,
of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail
in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel.
Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction
to management.
In
addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development
of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing
such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment
of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to
bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard
as our intellectual property.
If
we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual
property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result
in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.
Changes
in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.
Our
success depends heavily on intellectual property, especially on patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the gene therapy industry
involves both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently
uncertain.
As
of 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent
when two or more patent applications claiming the same invention are filed by different parties. A third party that files a patent
application in the USPTO before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention
before it was made by the third party. The change to “first-to-file” from “first-to-invent” is one of
the changes to the patent laws of the U.S. resulting from the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “AIA”). Among some
of the other significant changes to the patent laws are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit
and provide opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO via procedures including post-grant and
inter partes review. These adversarial actions at the USPTO review patent claims without the presumption of validity afforded
to U.S. patents in lawsuits in U.S. federal courts and use a lower burden of proof than that used in litigation in U.S. federal
courts. Therefore, it is generally considered easier for a competitor or third party to have a patent invalidated in a Patent
Office post-grant review or inter partes review proceeding than in a litigation in a U.S. federal court. If any of our patents
are challenged by a third party in such a USPTO proceeding, there is no guarantee that we or our licensors or collaborators will
be successful in defending the patent, which would result in a loss of the challenged patent right. The AIA and its implementation
could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense
of any issued patents, all of which could harm our business and financial condition.
We
also may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or become involved in other contested proceedings
such as opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging
our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could
reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete
directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing
third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications
is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future products.
If
we do not obtain patent term extension and data exclusivity for our product candidates, our business may be harmed.
Depending
upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents
may be eligible for limited patent term extension (“PTE”) under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration
Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”). The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a PTE of up to five years as compensation
for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. PTE cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total
of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended per FDA-approved product, and only those claims
covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Further, certain of our licenses
currently or in the future may not provide us with the right to control decisions the licensor or its other licensees on PTE decisions
under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Thus, if one of our important licensed patents is eligible for PTE, and it covers a product of another
licensee in addition to our own product candidate, we may not be able to obtain that extension if the other licensee seeks and
obtains that extension first. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence
during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to
expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time-period or
the scope of patent protection afforded during any such extension could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain PTE
or the duration of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market
our product may be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and
our revenue could be materially reduced.
Intellectual
property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.
The
degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have
limitations, and such rights may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:
|
●
|
others
may be able to make gene therapy products that are similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims
of the patents that we license or may own in the future;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
we,
or our license partners or current or future collaborators, might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by
the issued patent or pending patent application that we license or may own in the future;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
we,
or our license partners or current or future collaborators, might not have been the first to file patent applications covering
certain of our or their inventions;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
others
may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our
owned or licensed intellectual property rights;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
it
is possible that our pending patent applications or those that we may own in the future will not lead to issued patents;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
issued
patents that we hold rights to may be held invalid or unenforceable, including as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
our
competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use
the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
we
may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
the
patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
we
may choose not to file a patent application for certain trade secrets or know-how, and a third party may subsequently file
a patent application covering such intellectual property.
|
Should
any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Risks
relating to our financial condition and capital requirements
We
have experienced a history of losses, we expect to incur future losses and we may be unable to obtain necessary additional capital
to fund operations in the future.
We
have recorded minimal revenue to date and have incurred an accumulated deficit of approximately $486.5 million through December
31, 2019. The net loss for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $76.3 million. Our losses have resulted principally from costs
incurred in research and development activities related to our efforts to develop clinical drug candidates, from losses due to
derivatives and from the associated administrative costs.
We
require substantial capital for our development programs and operating expenses, to pursue regulatory clearances and to prosecute
and defend our intellectual property rights. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses
for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:
|
●
|
continue
our research and preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
expand
the scope of our current clinical studies for our product candidates;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
further
develop the manufacturing process for our vectors or our product candidates;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
change
or add additional manufacturers or suppliers;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
seek
regulatory and marketing approvals for our product candidates that successfully complete clinical studies;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
seek
to identify and validate additional product candidates;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
acquire
or in-license other product candidates and technologies;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
make
milestone or other payments under any license agreements;
|
|
●
|
maintain,
protect and expand our intellectual property portfolio;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
establish
a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure in the United States and Europe to commercialize any products for which
we may obtain marketing approval;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
attract
and retain skilled personnel;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
build
additional infrastructure to support our operations as a larger public company and our product development and planned future
commercialization efforts, including manufacturing capacity; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
experience
any delays or encounter issues with any of the above.
|
The
net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison
of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular quarter or quarters, our
operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline.
As
of December 31, 2019, our cash and cash equivalents were $129.3 million. We expect that our existing cash and cash equivalents
will be sufficient to fund our business operations for the foreseeable future. However, our operating plan may change as a result
of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private
equity, government or other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances
and licensing arrangements or a combination of these approaches. In any event, we will require additional capital to obtain regulatory
approval for, and to commercialize, our product candidates. Even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future
operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or if we have specific strategic objectives.
Any
additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability
to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available
in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings
or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility
of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities
would dilute all of our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and we
may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations
on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely
impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborative partners
or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our
technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect
on our business, operating results and prospects.
If
we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more
of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates or be unable to expand our operations
or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
We
do not have significant operating revenue and may never achieve profitability.
To
date, we have funded our operations primarily through public offerings of our common stock. Our ability to achieve significant
revenue or profitability depends upon our ability to complete the development of our drug candidates, to develop and obtain patent
protection and regulatory approvals for our drug candidates and to manufacture and commercialize the resulting drugs. We are not
expecting any significant revenues in the short-term from our products or product candidates. Furthermore, we may not be able
to ever successfully identify, develop, commercialize, patent, manufacture, obtain required regulatory approvals or market any
products. Moreover, even if we do identify, develop, commercialize, patent, manufacture, or obtain required regulatory approvals
to market additional products, we may not generate revenues or royalties from commercial sales of these products for a significant
number of years, if at all. Therefore, our operations are subject to all the risks inherent in the establishment of a new business
enterprise. In the next few years, we expect limited revenues from product sales, if any, and any amounts that we receive under
strategic partnerships and research or drug development collaborations that we may establish and, as a result, we may be unable
to achieve or maintain profitability in the future or to achieve significant revenues in order to fund our operations.
Failure
to achieve and maintain effective internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Effective
internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports,
our operating results could be harmed. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore,
even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation
and presentation.
Any
failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our operating
results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. Failure to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment
could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a material adverse effect on
our stock price. Failure to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could also potentially subject us to actions or
investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities.
We
expect to continue to need to raise additional capital to operate our business, and our failure to obtain funding when needed
or on terms that are favorable to us may force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our development programs or aspects thereof.
We
will need to raise additional capital to fund our future operations and we cannot be certain that funding will be available to
us on acceptable terms on a timely basis, or at all. Our ability to raise capital through the sale of securities may be limited
by our number of authorized shares of common stock and various rules of the SEC and the Nasdaq that place limits on the number
and dollar amount of securities that we may sell. If we fail to raise additional funds on acceptable terms or at all, we may be
unable to complete planned preclinical and clinical trials or obtain approval of our product candidates from the FDA and other
regulatory authorities. In addition, we could be forced to delay, discontinue or curtail product development, or forego licensing
in attractive business opportunities. Any additional sources of financing will likely involve the issuance of our equity or debt
securities, which will have a dilutive effect on our stockholders.
Risks
related to our common stock
The
market price of our common stock may be volatile and adversely affected by several factors.
The
market price of our common stock could fluctuate significantly in response to various factors and events, including:
|
●
|
our
ability to integrate operations, technology, products and services;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
our
ability to execute our business plan;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
operating
results below expectations;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
announcements
concerning product development results, including clinical trial results, intellectual property rights of others;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
regulatory
or legal developments in the U.S. or EU, including decisions from regulatory agencies relating to our product candidates;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
litigation
or public concern about the safety of our potential products;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
our
issuance of additional securities, including debt or equity or a combination thereof, which will be necessary to fund our
operating expenses;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
announcements
of technological innovations or new products by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
loss
of any strategic relationship;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
industry
developments, including, without limitation, changes in healthcare policies or practices or third-party reimbursement policies;
economic and other external factors;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
period-to-period
fluctuations in our financial results; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
whether
an active trading market in our common stock develops and is maintained.
|
In
addition, the securities markets have from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that are unrelated
to the operating performance of particular companies. These market fluctuations may also materially and adversely affect the market
price of our common stock.
Raising
additional funds by issuing securities or through licensing or lending arrangements may cause dilution to our existing stockholders,
restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.
If
we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, the share ownership of existing stockholders will be diluted. Any future
debt financing may involve covenants that, among other restrictions, limit our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay
dividends, redeem or repurchase our common stock, make certain investments or engage in certain merger, consolidation or asset
sale transactions. In addition, if we raise additional funds through licensing arrangements or the disposition of any of our assets,
it may be necessary to relinquish potentially valuable rights to our product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not
favorable to us.
The
terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities,
whether equity or debt, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. We may sell
shares or other securities in any other offering, including under our open market sale agreement with Jefferies, at a price per
share that is less than the prices per share paid by investors in this offering, and investors purchasing shares of our common
stock or other securities in the future could have rights superior to existing stockholders. The sale of additional equity or
convertible securities would dilute all of our stockholders and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other
preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. For example, we raised capital through a public offering of equity
securities and pre-funded warrants in December 2019 pursuant to which existing stockholders incurred immediate dilution of $1.10
per share in as-adjusted net tangible book value of common stock as a result of such offering.
We
have not paid cash dividends in the past and do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any return on investment
may be limited to the value of our common stock.
We
have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable
future. The payment of dividends on our capital stock will depend on our earnings, financial condition and other business and
economic factors affecting us at such time as the board of directors may consider relevant. If we do not pay dividends, our common
stock may be less valuable because a return on your investment will only occur if the common stock price appreciates.
Our
quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly.
We
expect our operating results to be subject to quarterly fluctuations. Our net loss and other operating results will be affected
by numerous factors, including:
|
●
|
variations
in the level of expenses related to our development programs;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
addition
or termination of clinical trials;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
any
intellectual property infringement lawsuit in which we may become involved;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
regulatory
developments affecting our product candidates; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
our
execution of any collaborative, licensing or similar arrangements, and the timing of payments we may make or receive under
these arrangements.
|
If
our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock
could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of
our common stock to fluctuate substantially.
Provisions
of our charter documents could discourage an acquisition of our company that would benefit our stockholders and may have the effect
of entrenching, and making it difficult to remove, management.
Provisions
of our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us, even if
a change in control would benefit our stockholders. In particular, shares of our preferred stock may be issued in the future without
further stockholder approval and upon such terms and conditions, and having such rights, privileges and preferences, as our Board
of Directors may determine, including, for example, rights to convert into our common stock. The rights of the holders of our
common stock will be subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of the holders of any of our preferred stock that
may be issued in the future. The issuance of our preferred stock, while providing desirable flexibility in connection with possible
acquisitions and other corporate purposes, could have the effect of making it more difficult for a third party to acquire control
of us. This could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock
and discourage these investors from acquiring a majority of our common stock. Further, the existence of these corporate governance
provisions could have the effect of entrenching management and making it more difficult to change our management.
There
can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with continued listing standards of the Nasdaq Capital Market.
The
Nasdaq Capital Market’s continued listing standards for our common stock require, among other things, that (i) we maintain
a closing bid price for our common stock of at least $1.00, and (ii) we maintain: (A) stockholders’ equity of $2.5 million;
(B) market value of listed securities of $35 million; or (C) net income from continuing operations of $500,000 in the most recently
completed fiscal year or in two of the last three most recently completed fiscal years. Any failures to satisfy any continued
listing requirements could lead to the receipt of a deficiency notice from the Nasdaq and ultimately to a delisting from trading
of our common stock. We cannot assure you that we will be able to continue to comply with the minimum bid price and the other
standards that we are required to meet in order to maintain a listing of our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market. Our failure
to continue to meet these requirements may result in our common stock being delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market. If our common
stock were delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market, among other things, this could result in a number of negative implications,
including reduced liquidity in our common stock as a result of the loss of market efficiencies associated with the Nasdaq and
the loss of federal preemption of state securities laws as well as the potential loss of confidence by suppliers, customers and
employees, institutional investor interest, fewer business development opportunities, greater difficulty in obtaining financing
and breaches of certain contractual obligations.
Our
ability to use our net operating loss carry forwards may be subject to limitation.
Generally,
a change of more than 50% in the ownership of a company’s stock, by value, over a three-year period constitutes an ownership
change for U.S. federal income tax purposes. An ownership change may limit our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards
attributable to the period prior to the change. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change
net operating loss carryforwards to offset U.S. federal taxable income may become subject to limitations, which could potentially
result in increased future tax liability for us. At December 31, 2019, we had net operating loss carryforwards aggregating approximately
$241.9 million.
Ownership
of our shares is concentrated in the hands of a few investors, which could limit the ability of our other stockholders to influence
the direction of the Company.
As
calculated by the SEC rules of beneficial ownership, SCO Capital Partners LLC and affiliates (“SCO Capital”)
beneficially owned approximately 16% of our common stock as of March 9, 2020. SCO Capital also has the right to nominate two individuals
to serve as members of the Board pursuant to a director designation agreement dated as of November 15, 2007 between Abeona and
SCO. Accordingly, SCO Capital has the ability to significantly influence or determine the election of our directors
or the outcome of most corporate actions requiring stockholder approval. They may exercise this ability in a manner that advances
their best interests and not necessarily those of our other stockholders.
In
addition, we granted to affiliates of Great Point Partners, LLC (“GPP”) the right to nominate two individuals to serve
as members of the Board in connection with an investment from funds affiliated with GPP in our December 2019 public offering of
common stock and pre-funded warrants. As calculated by the SEC rules of beneficial ownership, GPP and its affiliates beneficially
owned 9.99% of our common stock as of March 9, 2020.