Item 1.Business.
Overview
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that utilizes a proprietary technology platform to discover and develop novel peptide-based drugs to address significant unmet medical needs and transform existing treatment paradigms for patients. We have three assets in various stages of clinical development derived from this platform, and we expect to report results from six different Phase 2 studies by the end of 2021.
Figure 1: Our Product Pipeline
Our most advanced clinical asset, PTG-300, is an injectable hepcidin mimetic in development for the potential treatment of iron overload and other blood disorders. PTG-300 mimics the effect of the natural hormone hepcidin, but with greater potency, solubility and stability. Hepcidin is a key hormone in regulating iron equilibrium and is critical to the proper development of red blood cells. We are currently developing PTG-300 for the treatment of ineffective erythropoiesis, chronic anemia and iron overload, with an initial focus on beta-thalassemia non-transfusion dependent (“NTD”) and transfusion dependent (“TD”) patients where the primary endpoints are hemoglobin increases and transfusion burden reductions, respectively. PTG-300 has received an orphan drug designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and European Union (“EU”) regulatory authorities for the treatment of beta-thalassemia. The FDA has granted Fast Track designation to PTG-300 for the treatment of beta-thalassemia. In the first quarter of 2019, we began dosing patients in a global Phase 2 study of PTG-300 in beta-thalassemia. Preliminary results from this Phase 2 study reported in the fourth quarter of 2019 suggest that the dose related pharmacodynamic responses in lowering serum iron and transferrin saturation (“TSAT”) warrant continued evaluation at higher and/or more frequent doses which will be required to evaluate the rate and durability of clinical response in order to reach definitive conclusions. We expect to report clinical efficacy results from this Phase 2 study in 2020. We initiated a Phase 2 study in polycythemia vera (“PV”) in the third quarter of 2019 and a Phase 2 study in hereditary hemochromatosis (“HH”) in January 2020. We are working toward the initiation of an investigator-sponsored study (“IST”) of PTG-300 in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (“MDS”) in the first half of 2020. Assuming PTG-300 shows clinical efficacy in one or more of the above indications, we intend to select our first indication in 2020 for a potential pivotal study to begin in 2021.
Our clinical assets PTG-200 and PN-943 are orally delivered drugs currently in development for inflammatory bowel disease (“IBD”), a gastrointestinal (“GI”) disease consisting primarily of ulcerative colitis (“UC”) and Crohn’s disease (“CD”), that block biological pathways currently targeted by marketed injectable antibody drugs. Our orally stable peptide approach offers targeted delivery to the GI tissue compartment. We believe that, compared to antibody drugs, these product candidates have the potential to provide improved safety due to minimal exposure in the blood, increased convenience and compliance due to oral delivery, and the opportunity for the earlier introduction of targeted oral therapy. As a result, if approved, they may transform the existing treatment paradigm for IBD.
PTG-200 (also referenced as JNJ-67864238) is an orally delivered gut-restricted Interleukin-23 receptor (“IL-23R”) antagonist for the treatment of IBD. In May 2017, we entered into a worldwide license and collaboration agreement with Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“Janssen”), a Johnson & Johnson company, to co-develop and co-detail PTG-200 and any second-generation compounds for all indications, including IBD. The agreement with Janssen was amended in May 2019 to expand the collaboration by supporting efforts towards second-generation IL-23R antagonists, triggering a $25.0 million milestone payment to us. In January 2020, as part of the expanded research collaboration, we announced the identification and nomination of an orally delivered, gut-restricted IL-23R antagonist peptide as a second-generation development candidate, triggering a $5.0 million milestone payment to us. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis – Overview” and Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information. In 2018, we completed a Phase 1 clinical study to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of PTG-200 in healthy volunteers. Janssen submitted a U.S. Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) for PTG-200 in CD during the second quarter of 2019, which took effect in July 2019. In collaboration with Janssen, we initiated a Phase 2 clinical study for PTG-200 in CD in the fourth quarter of 2019, with results expected in the first half of 2021.
PN-943 is an orally delivered, gut-restricted, alpha-4-beta-7 (“α4β7”) specific integrin antagonist. We developed PN-943 as a potentially more potent orally delivered, gut-restricted α4β7 backup compound to PTG-100, our first-generation orally delivered gut-restricted α4β7 inhibitor that was being developed for treatment of UC. In 2019, we completed a Phase 1 single ascending dose (“SAD”) and multiple ascending dose (“MAD”) clinical study of PN-943 in healthy volunteers to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. We reported results of the SAD part of the study during the second quarter of 2019 and the MAD part of the study during the third quarter of 2019. The pharmacodynamic results indicated that the administration of PN-943 was well tolerated, and results of target engagement were supportive of the higher potency of PN-943 as compared to PTG-100. We submitted a U.S. IND for PN-943 in December 2019, which took effect in January 2020. We anticipate initiating a Phase 2 proof of concept (“POC”) study in UC in the second quarter of 2020, with topline data expected in the second half of 2021.
Our clinical assets are all derived from our proprietary discovery platform. Our platform enables us to engineer novel, structurally constrained peptides that retain key advantages of both orally delivered small molecules and injectable antibody drugs, while overcoming many of their limitations as therapeutic agents. Importantly, constrained peptides can be designed to alleviate the fundamental instability inherent in traditional peptides to allow different delivery forms, such as oral, subcutaneous, intravenous, and rectal. We continue to use our peptide technology platform to discover product candidates against targets in disease areas with significant unmet medical needs.
PTG‑300: AN INJECTABLE HEPCIDIN MIMETIC
PTG-300, an injectable hepcidin mimetic, was discovered through our peptide technology platform. Hepcidin is a natural hormone that regulates iron metabolism. We are developing PTG-300 for the treatment of certain disorders characterized by ineffective erythropoiesis, excessive red blood cells or iron overload. In diseases of ineffective erythropoiesis, excessive quantities of iron in the bone marrow contribute to oxidative stress and premature cell death causing anemia. In healthy individuals, hepcidin regulates iron levels by inhibiting iron absorption from the GI tract and by limiting macrophage release of iron. Individuals with beta-thalassemia and MDS can have insufficient hepcidin to maintain appropriate iron levels that result in chronic anemia. Because of stability issues, complexity of synthesis and solubility limitations, direct replacement with native hepcidin is not a practical therapeutic approach. We developed PTG-300 as a stable, soluble, more readily manufactured injectable hepcidin mimetic that could potentially prevent iron toxicity and anemia with chronic subcutaneous injections.
Mechanism of Action and Rationale
The molecular target of the hormone hepcidin is the cellular trans-membrane protein ferroportin, which functions as an export channel for intracellular iron in macrophages, liver hepatocytes, and duodenal enterocytes. By binding to the extracellular domain of ferroportin, hepcidin redistributes iron by reducing the export of iron from inside the enterocytes and macrophages to the systemic circulation. Excessive quantities of iron relative to the lower levels of beta-globin chains in the bone marrow induce ineffective erythropoiesis resulting in anemia. As a hepcidin mimetic, PTG-300 may redistribute iron to the macrophages, reduce iron-induced oxidative stress in the bone marrow, and allow for sufficient production of red blood cells. In addition, by limiting the release of iron into the blood, PTG-300 may inhibit the damage caused by excessive absorption of iron by vital organs such as the liver and heart (i.e. secondary iron overload).
Iron Disorders Overview
Beta-thalassemia
Beta-thalassemia is a rare genetic blood disorder that is characterized by impaired red blood cell production. As a result of the underlying genetic defect in -globin production, beta-thalassemia patients may be severely anemic, resulting in the need for lifelong supportive care with regular red blood cell transfusions. Repeated transfusions can cause secondary iron overload in the heart and liver which results in shortened lifespan in patients. In the bone marrow, elevated levels of iron relative to the decreased levels of beta-globin can prevent red blood cells from fully developing, resulting in anemia. In addition, the resulting immature red blood cells can aggregate in the spleen causing organ enlargement that may require surgical removal. In conditions of ineffective erythropoiesis, such as beta-thalassemia and MDS, hepcidin levels are suppressed leading to increases in iron absorption from the GI tract and iron export from macrophages which may be toxic to developing erythrocytes. It has been proposed that agents with hepcidin activity may help correct the iron distribution abnormalities in beta-thalassemia with beneficial effects on erythropoiesis.
Existing treatment options for iron-loading anemia and secondary iron overload are limited. Patients with transfusion-dependent (“TD”) beta-thalassemia require lifelong regular red blood cell transfusions and general supportive care. Red blood cell transfusions can treat a patient’s anemia but exacerbate the patient’s iron overload and are burdensome. The iron overload caused by transfusions may require treatment with chelating agents, which can have adverse effects. Transfusion and iron chelation therapy have significantly improved the survival of TD beta-thalassemia patients over the last few decades. However, these agents work very slowly and have significant kidney, gastrointestinal, and liver toxicity issues. The greatest unmet need for beta-thalassemia is for more effective treatment for chronic anemia to decrease the burden of frequent blood transfusions and thus eliminate the complications associated with the disease and its management as well as costs associated with red blood cell transfusions and chelation therapy. We believe that PTG-300 may be able to restore iron homeostasis in the bone marrow as well as reduce excess circulating iron, improving anemia and thereby reducing or eliminating the need for red blood cell transfusions and related chelation treatments.
Beta-thalassemia is most prevalent in people of Mediterranean descent, such as Italians, Greeks or Turks, and is also found in people from the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Africa, Southeast Asia and southern China. Globally, the prevalence of beta-thalassemia was estimated to be approximately 300,000 patients in 2008, with at least 60,000 patients born each year with the disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2018, Decision Resource Group (“DRG”) reported that while beta-thalassemia has a worldwide carrier rate of 1.5%, the disease is rare in the United States, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, and France with a total diagnosed prevalence of 16,000 patients, approximately 85% of which are transfusion dependent, representing an estimated market opportunity of approximately $1.4 billion to $2.5 billion. The prevalence in the United States is low, with an estimated 3,000 patients and approximately 300 patients born each year with the disease. Most patients with beta-thalassemia suffer from anemia caused by hepcidin deficiency and a significant number are dependent on transfusions and chelating agents, which can cost between $50,000 to $70,000 per year in the United States.
Polycythemia vera (“PV”)
PV is a rare chronic disease caused by a hematopoietic stem cell mutation. PV is characterized by excessive erythropoiesis (production of blood cells). These excess blood cells can increase risk of serious problems such as blood clots, potentially leading to heart attack and stroke as well as more common symptoms including fatigue, headache, blurred vision, shortness of breath and an enlarged spleen. Over time PV may transform into myelofibrosis or leukemia. An important aspect of the mechanism of action of the hepcidin mimetic PTG-300 is to reduce serum iron, which is required to support the excessive erythropoiesis which occurs in PV, thereby potentially enabling PTG-300 to manage this excessive erythropoiesis and ultimately reduce the phlebotomy burden and thrombotic risk in these patients. In the United States, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain and France, there are currently more than 150,000 diagnosed PV patients representing an estimated market opportunity of approximately $1.0 billion to $2.0 billion.
Hereditary hemochromatosis (“HH”)
HH is a blood disorder caused by genetic mutations that increase iron uptake from the diet and alter its distribution in the body, leading to iron buildup in the body’s tissues and organs, particularly in the skin, heart, liver, pancreas and joint tissues. Excess iron in these organs and tissues can be toxic and over time lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer, heart problems, joint pain and diabetes. Current treatments for HH, including periodic phlebotomy, can be a significant burden to patients. PTG-300 could potentially reduce the need for phlebotomy and offer a safer and better long-term solution to management of the disease. The genetic defects that cause most HH are present in approximately five to seven million patients in the United States and EU.
Myelodysplastic syndromes (“MDS”)
MDS are a group of disorders in which blood cells do not mature properly in the bone marrow. Symptoms can include fatigue, shortness of breath, excessive bleeding or frequent infections. There are approximately 19,000 transfusion dependent MDS patients in the United States, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, and France. There are multiple MDS subpopulations, some of which are characterized by anemia, low hepcidin, and high serum iron and transferrin saturation. Significant unmet needs for these patients include reduction in or elimination of transfusions, prevention of disease progression to acute myelogenous leukemia and overall survival.
PTG‑300’s Clinical Development Program
PTG-300 has received orphan drug designation from the FDA and EU regulatory authorities, and Fast Track designation from the FDA for the treatment of beta-thalassemia. Fast Track designation is an expedited review to facilitate development of investigational drugs which treat a serious or life-threatening condition and fill an unmet medical need. In 2018, we successfully filed an IND for PTG-300 in the United States and related clinical trial applications outside the United States.
In the first quarter of 2019, we began dosing patients in a global Phase 2 study of PTG-300 in beta-thalassemia called TRANSCEND. The study is a single-arm, open label, MAD design that evaluates safety, POC and dose finding in adolescent and adult patients with anemia associated with NTD or TD beta-thalassemia. NTD patients receive 12 weeks treatment with PTG-300 in escalating dose cohorts. The primary efficacy endpoint in NTD patients is a change in hemoglobin from baseline. TD patients receive 16 weeks treatment with PTG-300 in escalating dose cohorts. The primary efficacy endpoint in TD patients is a change in transfusion burden from baseline. The primary objectives of this study are to evaluate the safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of PTG-300 and identify an appropriate starting dose and titration regimen for registration studies.
Previously, we reported preliminary results from the Phase 2 study. Dose-related drug exposure reductions from baseline TSAT and serum iron levels were observed (Figure 2), with significant reductions at the 40 mg and 80 mg weekly doses and significant and sustained reductions at the 40 mg twice weekly doses.
Figure 2: PTG-300 Reduces TSAT and Serum Iron Levels – TD Beta-thalassemia Patients and Normal Human Volunteers (“NHV”)
The dose-related pharmacodynamic responses in TSAT and serum iron levels observed in this preliminary analysis provide the first evidence of the effects of PTG-300 in patients with beta-thalassemia. These early results suggest the potential of finding an appropriate dose of PTG-300 for continued development in the treatment of beta-thalassemia. While we have observed clinical responders in the study based on the pre-specified criteria of reductions in transfusion burden, continued evaluation at higher doses will be required to evaluate the rate and durability of these
effects in order to reach definitive conclusions. We will continue further study with additional dose regimens and longer follow-up and expect to report topline results in 2020.
PTG-300 was well-tolerated and systemic adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and were typical of patients with beta-thalassemia. These events were not dose-related and did not prevent dose escalation. There was one serious drug-related adverse event of vomiting and confusion, and the most frequent treatment emergent adverse event observed was injection site erythema in 5 out of 39 patients (12.8%).
In the fourth quarter of 2019, we initiated a Phase 2 study of PTG-300 in PV designed to evaluate safety and preliminary efficacy in patients requiring phlebotomy. The Phase 2 study in PV is expected to enroll approximately 30 patients and consists of a 16-week open-label dose finding stage every 4 weeks from 10 mg to 80 mg and a 12-week maintenance period at doses which generate desired hematocrit levels, followed by a 12-week randomized and blinded withdrawal stage. The study has an open-label extension for up to one year to monitor long term safety and benefits of the drug. The endpoints of this clinical POC study include measurement of blood parameters (hematocrit and hemoglobin levels), reductions or delay in phlebotomy requirements, and improvements in quality-of-life symptoms.
In January 2020, we initiated a Phase 2 study of PTG-300 in HH. This study is an open label, multicenter study designed to evaluate the effects of PTG-300 in approximately 30 adult patients over 24 weeks of treatment. Guidelines for HH focus on controlling TSAT and ferritin to prevent long-term complications. Given the TSAT reductions from PTG-300 observed to date in both healthy volunteers and beta-thalassemia patients, as well as regulation of organ iron content in a mouse model of HH, we believe that a significant reduction in phlebotomy may be possible with PTG-300. The endpoints of this POC study include change in TSAT and serum iron levels, reductions in phlebotomy requirements and an assessment of participant-reported outcomes.
We expect to initiate an IST of PTG-300 in MDS in the first half of 2020.
Assuming PTG-300 shows clinical efficacy in one or more of the above indications, we intend to select our first indication in 2020 for a potential pivotal study to begin in 2021.
OVERVIEW OF INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE
IBD is a group of chronic autoimmune and inflammatory conditions of the colon and small intestine, consisting primarily of UC and CD. In UC, inflammation may be limited to part of the colon or extend through its entirety. UC is primarily characterized by ulceration of the intestinal surface, accompanied by rectal bleeding and frequent, urgent bowel movements. CD occurs anywhere along the GI tract, commonly affecting the small intestine and the proximal large intestine. CD complications may include strictures and fistula, which penetrate all layers of the intestine. UC is usually diagnosed earlier than CD due to bleeding symptoms. Patients with CD may initially present with abdominal pain, fatigue and anorexia, which can be misdiagnosed. Both diseases’ peak diagnosis years are in young adulthood and are found about equally in both males and females. Management is lifelong and affects school attendance, graduation rates, childbearing and work productivity. IBD prevalence is increasing worldwide and is correlated with the adoption of western diets and lifestyle, as well as genetic factors (5 to 20% of affected patients have a first degree relative with the disease).
Market Overview
According to the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America, there are more than 1.6 million IBD patients in the United States alone, an increase of approximately 200,000 patients since 2011. As many as 70,000 new cases of IBD are diagnosed in the United States each year, and there may be as many as 80,000 children in the United States with IBD. GlobalData estimates that the UC market was approximately $5.3 billion across seven major markets: United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom and Japan. This is expected to increase at a compound annual growth rate of approximately 2.5% to $6.8 billion by 2026. In 2017, GlobalData estimated that the CD market reached approximately $9.6 billion across those same seven major markets and is expected to grow approximately 3.7% per year to $13.8 billion by 2026.
Johnson & Johnson global sales of Stelara® (approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, moderate-to-severe CD and UC) exceeded $5.0 billion in 2018. Takeda Pharmaceuticals sales of Entyvio® for IBD reached approximately $3.0 billion in 2019.
Current Standard of Care in IBD
In recent years, treatment of IBD has evolved from a focus on successful symptom management to an emphasis on modifying the underlying disease to achieve long-term remission. While available treatments exist for moderate-to-severe IBD, there continues to be a significant medical need for novel, efficacious, safe and convenient treatments. New technologies and outcome measures have been developed to improve staging definitions and assessments of treatment benefit. Nonetheless, halting or reversing IBD progression has not yet been achieved with any single agent therapy, and attaining and maintaining long-term remission in most patients remains a significant unmet medical need. Across therapeutic classes, 15% to 31% rates of clinical remission represent the current ceiling in patients with moderate-to-severely active disease.
Biosimilar infliximab and other tumor necrosis factor (“TNF”) inhibitors are the first line standard of care in moderate-to-severe IBD. Anti-TNFs bind to and neutralize a central pro-inflammatory cytokine in the gut via systemic immunosuppression. As a result, they can be associated with infection and malignancy risk. Although the magnitude of these risks is relatively low, they are significant for the young IBD population who must continue on lifelong treatment. In addition, more than 10% of patients treated with anti-TNF agents lose response with each year of treatment. In 2014, a novel anti-trafficking mechanism launched with vedolizumab (Entyvio®), which blocks migration of leukocytes into the gut via α4β7 integrins. This mechanism remains the only true “gut selective” approach in the IBD market today, although formulation technologies can limit systemic exposure from orally delivered agents. Entyvio® has shown an excellent safety profile, although it requires intravenous administration. Entyvio® was followed by the launch of ustekinumab (Stelara®) in CD in 2016, which blocks inflammation produced through the Interleukin 12 (“IL-12”) and Interleukin 23 (“IL-23”) pathways, and tofacitinib (Xeljanz®), an orally delivered pan-Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved in UC.
A head-to-head trial called VARSITY comparing the long-term safety and efficacy of an anti-integrin and anti-TNFs has been completed. Entyvio® demonstrated superior rates of clinical remission and endoscopic improvement compared with Humira, the market leader in the TNF inhibitor class. The first formal combination trials in IBD were initiated in the last year, adding new mechanisms such as integrin inhibitors or IL-23 inhibitors to anti-TNFs. Most IBD experts now believe that combining treatment classes with additive or synergistic mechanisms of action will be required to attain the disease-modifying effects and lasting remissions in a larger group of patients documented in other areas of immunology, such as psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis.
We believe the development of new, potent and targeted orally delivered therapies for IBD may offer safer and more effective treatment options, alone or in combination, for moderate-to-severe IBD patients. In addition, many clinicians continue to advocate for earlier introduction of targeted therapeutics in mild-to-moderate IBD in order to prevent disease progression and irreversible gastrointestinal damage. Our orally delivered, GI-restricted, peptide drugs PTG-200 and PN-943 work on the same specific validated targets as FDA-approved injectable antibodies and have the potential to offer improved safety and compliance and to minimize the risk of immunogenicity associated with antibodies. We believe that our product candidates, if approved, have the potential to be used more broadly, including treatment of mild-to-moderate IBD.
Our IBD Solution: Orally Delivered, GI-Restricted Peptides as Targeted Therapies
For the IBD targets of interest, the size and nature of our peptides are carefully selected and modified so as to acquire the desired potency and specificity, and also to largely restrict their presence to the GI tissue compartment when administered orally. These features translate to orally delivered, GI-restricted, selective and potent peptide drug candidates with specific advantages compared to antibody drugs:
|
|
·
|
|
Oral administration. We are developing our peptide therapeutics in a convenient capsule or tablet form intended for oral administration. We believe oral administration may reduce many of the problems and
|
|
limitations associated with injections or infusions, including injection site pain and local reactions, inconvenience, anxiety, high rates of immunogenicity and potential safety risks.
|
|
|
·
|
|
Potential for improved safety and tolerability compared to antibody drugs.
|
|
|
·
|
|
Oral and GI-restricted delivery minimizes systemic exposure in the blood. Oral and GI-restricted delivery results in lower drug levels in the blood that may provide the potential for an enhanced safety profile over antibody drugs.
|
|
|
·
|
|
Peptides can be cleared more quickly from systemic circulation. Small molecules and peptides below a size threshold can be rapidly cleared from blood circulation by kidney filtration and excretion. Rapid clearance may be beneficial especially if patients need to discontinue therapy. In contrast, antibody drugs, because of their long plasma half-life, may take months to clear from blood circulation, leaving patients exposed to continued or increased safety risk.
|
|
|
·
|
|
The likelihood of much lower immunogenicity of small stable peptides compared to antibody drugs reduces the risk of loss of response. We believe that anti-drug antibodies are less likely to be elicited against constrained peptides, due to their small size, lack of epitope density, resistance to proteolysis, oral tolerance, and minimal systemic absorption.
|
|
|
·
|
|
Potential for localized delivery to site of disease. We believe oral dosing of GI-restricted peptides results in substantially higher drug concentrations in the diseased GI tissue compartment compared to injectable antibody drugs. This targeted delivery to the site of action may lead to more immediate and significant target engagement at the site of active disease in the GI tissue compartment with the potential for improved efficacy.
|
|
|
·
|
|
Cost-effective and less complex manufacturing. Because of their size and stability, we believe that our orally delivered, GI-restricted peptide product candidates can be produced, stored and shipped in a more cost-effective manner than many antibody drugs.
|
In chronic GI diseases such as IBD, we believe that our orally delivered, GI-restricted peptide product candidates may offer improved delivery, the potential for improved safety and tolerability, and cost efficiencies that may provide an overall benefit to patients, payors, and physicians.
PTG‑200: AN ORALLY DELIVERED IL‑23R ANTAGONIST
PTG-200, an orally delivered, gut-restricted IL‑23R specific antagonist for the treatment of IBD, was discovered through our peptide technology platform. Interleukin‑23 (“IL-23”), a member of the IL‑12 family of pro-inflammatory cytokines, is a protein that regulates inflammatory and immune function and plays a key role in the development of IBD. By blocking IL‑23R with PTG‑200 in the GI tissue compartment, we hope to improve disease symptoms and reduce bowel wall damage while potentially minimizing the risk of systemic side effects due to its GI-restricted nature.
Mechanism of Action and Rationale
IL-23 is a member of the IL‑12 family of cytokines with pro-inflammatory and autoimmune properties. Cytokines are cell signaling proteins that are released by cells and affect the behavior of other cells. Binding of the IL‑23 ligand to the IL‑23R receptor leads to an expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines involved in the mucosal autocrine cascade that is an important pathway of many inflammatory diseases, including IBD. Furthermore, genetic analyses of IBD patients have implicated IL‑23R mutations as a risk factor associated with susceptibility to IBD. The infused antibody drug ustekinumab (marketed as ‑Stelara® for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and moderate-to-severe CD) is a p40 antagonist antibody that inhibits both the IL-23 and IL-12 pathways. Next-generation IBD antibody drugs, such as guselkumab, target the p19 subunit of the IL‑23 ligand and are specific to the IL-23 pathway, which is believed to be an important driver of local IBD pathology, while not blockading the IL‑12 pathway. IL‑12 is believed to be important in immune surveillance against the development of infections and malignancies.
We believe that the orally delivered, GI-restricted nature of PTG-200 may allow PTG‑200 to be a potent inhibitor of the IL‑23 pathway for the treatment of IBD. By targeting IL‑23R with our orally delivered GI-restricted IL‑23R antagonist PTG-200, we believe PTG‑200 may restore proper immune function in the GI tissue compartment where there is active disease while minimizing the risk of systemic side effects. Several key cell types that reside in gut-associated lymphoid tissue (“GALT”), including T cells, innate lymphoid cells, and natural killer cells, increase their expression of IL-23R during the progression of IBD. Therefore, the high concentrations of PTG‑200 in GALT will facilitate access and binding to IL‑23R expressed in the same tissue with the potential for concomitant efficacy benefits.
PTG-200’s Phase 1 Clinical Study
We completed a Phase 1 clinical trial of PTG-200 in Australia during the fourth quarter of 2018. The Phase 1 study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, SAD and MAD-escalation trial in 80 normal healthy volunteers. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included the identification of the maximally tolerated dose and the evaluation of pharmacokinetic parameters.
Results of the Phase 1 study demonstrated that administration of PTG-200 was well-tolerated. No serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were consistent with the GI-restricted design of PTG-200.
PTG-200’s Clinical Development Plan
We have a worldwide license and collaboration agreement with Janssen, to co-develop and co-detail PTG-200 and any second-generation compounds for all indications, including IBD. The agreement was amended in May 2019 to expand the collaboration by supporting efforts towards second-generation IL-23R antagonists, triggering a $25.0 million milestone payment to the Company. In January 2020, we announced the identification and nomination of an orally delivered, gut-restricted IL-23R antagonist peptide as a second-generation development candidate under our license and collaboration agreement with Janssen, advancing the collaboration and triggering a $5.0 million milestone payment to us. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis – Overview” and Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information. Janssen submitted an IND for PTG-200 in CD during the second quarter of 2019, which took effect in July 2019.
In collaboration with Janssen, we initiated a Phase 2 clinical study in CD called PRISM in the fourth quarter of 2019. The global, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 2 study is evaluating the efficacy of oral administration of PTG-200 in 90 patients with moderate-to-severe CD. The study will assess the effect of twice-daily dosing of PTG-200 on change from baseline in Crohn's Disease Activity Index score at week 12 as the primary endpoint. The study will also assess change from baseline in simple endoscopic score for CD rates of clinical response and remission, endoscopic response and remission, and patient-reported outcome-2 remission. Results from this Phase 2 study in CD are expected in 2021.
PN-943: AN ORALLY DELIVERED α4β7 INTEGRIN ANTAGONIST
PN-943, an orally delivered, gut-restricted α4β7 specific integrin antagonist, was discovered through our peptide technology platform and is being developed initially for patients with moderate-to-severe UC. α4β7 integrin is considered to be one of the most GI-specific biological targets for IBD due to its binding to MAdCAM-1, an extracellular protein that resides mostly in the GI vasculature. PN-943 shares the same α4β7 integrin target as the injectable antibody drug vedolizumab, marketed as Entyvio®, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe UC and CD. We believe that we can leverage the development and regulatory path of Entyvio® and other approved antibody drugs for IBD to help inform the design of our clinical development studies.
Mechanism of Action and Rationale
Integrins, such as α4β7, are transmembrane proteins that regulate cellular movement into extravascular tissue and play an important role in modulating the inflammatory reaction in the gut. The α4β7 integrin is expressed on the surface of T cells, immune cells that help defend against foreign and potentially harmful substances that enter the body. The
development of UC is driven by the migration of α4β7 T cells into the GI tissue compartment and their subsequent activation within the GI tissue compartment. The entry of α4β7 T cells into the GI tissue compartment is facilitated by the protein-protein interactions (“PPI”) between the α4β7 integrin and its corresponding ligand, MAdCAM‑1, which is primarily expressed in the GI tissue compartment. Hence, the binding of α4β7 to MAdCAM‑1 can be categorized as a GI-specific interaction and has been identified as an IBD-specific targeted therapeutic approach. By blocking the binding of α4β7 integrin to MAdCAM‑1, PN-943 may prevent T cells from entering the GI tissue compartment, thereby reducing the inflammation that leads to the clinical manifestations and long-term implications of UC.
α4β7 for IBD is targeted by the FDA-approved drug Entyvio®, which has demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe UC and CD. Since PN-943 targets the same biological pathway as Entyvio®, we utilized similar PD-based POC in our pre-clinical studies and Phase 1 clinical trial to inform and guide our Phase 2 development program. We sourced these PD biomarker assays from public scientific publications and do not maintain any contractual arrangement providing access to this information with the makers of these marketed products.
PN-943 Pre-Clinical Proof-of-Concept Studies
We have completed extensive pre-clinical studies of PN-943 in which we established pharmacodynamic target engagement POC, including effects on receptor occupancy, T cell trafficking and mucosal healing in rodents and monkeys. Based on pre-clinical data, we believe that PN-943 may be a more potent α4β7 integrin antagonist compound than PTG-100 without sacrificing its other positive attributes, such as selectivity and tolerability. PTG-100 is our first generation α4β7 inhibitor that shares the same α4β7 integrin target as Entyvio® for the treatment of moderate-to-severe UC and CD. We completed extensive pre-clinical studies of PTG-100 in which we established pharmacological POC and completed a Phase 1 clinical trial in Australia in 2016.
PN-943’s Phase 1 Clinical Trial Overview
We completed a Phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of PN-943 in normal healthy male volunteers in Australia in 2019. The Phase 1 SAD and MAD components were conducted with a solution-based liquid formulation. In addition to determining the safety and tolerability and pharmacokinetics of PN-943, the SAD and MAD components of the trial evaluated PD-based POC through the assessment of α4β7 receptor occupancy and α4β7 target expression that indicate target engagement on peripheral blood memory T cells similar to what was done in the pre-clinical studies and in the Phase 1 trial with PTG-100. In the clinical trial, dose escalation proceeded from 100 mg up to 1,400 mg for the SAD portion and 1,000 mg for the MAD portion.
We reported results of the SAD part of the study during the second quarter of 2019 and the MAD part of the study during the third quarter of 2019. The pharmacodynamic results of target engagement were supportive of the three-fold higher potency of PN-943 as compared to PTG-100 and saturation at 1000 mg (Figure 3). This is consistent with data from pre-clinical studies and confirmed by this Phase 1 pharmacodynamic data. We believe this links PN-943 to greater probability of success in a Phase 2 trial based on signs of clinical efficacy of PTG-100 in the Phase 2 PROPEL trial in US patients. The administration of PN-943 was well-tolerated.
Figure 3: PN-943 vs. PTG-100: Dose Related and Saturable Effect on Blood % Receptor Occupancy (“RO”)
PN-943 Clinical Development Plan
We filed an IND for PN-943 that took effect in January 2020. We expect to initiate a Phase 2 POC study of PN-943 in UC in the second quarter of 2020.
OUR PEPTIDE TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM
Our proprietary technology platform is purposefully built to exploit the advantages of constrained peptides, which are smaller than antibody-based drugs and may be delivered orally but are big enough to bind and block the difficult targets that antibodies bind and modulate. The platform has been successfully applied to a diverse set of biological targets that has led to several pre-clinical and clinical stage peptide-based new chemical entities, including our clinical stage product candidates, for a variety of clinical indications. Our platform is comprised of a series of tools and methods, including a combination of molecular design, phage display, stability assays, medicinal chemistry, biomarker, formulations, and in vivo pharmacology approaches. We apply this platform to the discovery and development of constrained peptides to develop new drug candidates.
The platform is used to develop potential drug candidates (agonists and antagonists): (i) using the structure of a target, when available, (ii) when no target structure exists, or (iii) from publicly disclosed peptide starting points. In a structure-based approach, our proprietary molecular design software and structural database of several thousand constrained peptides, termed Vectrix™, are screened to identify suitable scaffolds. The scaffolds identified form the basis of designing and constructing the first set of phage or chemical libraries. The initial hits are identified by either panning or screening such libraries, respectively. When structural information is unavailable for a target, hits are identified by panning a set of 34 proprietary cluster-based phage libraries consisting of millions of constrained peptides. Once the hits are identified, they are optimized using a set of peptide, peptide mimetic and medicinal chemistry techniques that include the incorporation of new or manipulation of existing cyclization-constraints, as well as natural or unnatural amino acids and chemical conjugation or acylation techniques. These techniques are applied to optimize potency, selectivity, stability, exposure and ultimately efficacy. For PTG-300, hit discovery and optimization relied exclusively on medicinal chemistry, with no phage display, to develop potent and selective injectable candidates with enhanced stability and exposure in blood. For injectable products, stability in blood is determined using in vitro assay techniques to identify chemical and biological sites of degradation, which are then optimized whilst maintaining potency and selectivity. Conjugation strategies are used to optimize the exposure of the injected peptide. For PN-943 and PTG‑200, phage display is tightly coupled to medicinal chemistry and oral stability techniques to develop potent,
selective and orally delivered molecules that are GI-restricted. Oral stability is profiled in a series of in vitro and ex vivo assays that portray the chemical and metabolic barriers a peptide will encounter as it transits the GI tract. These metabolically labile spots in the peptides are optimized using medicinal chemistry-based approaches to engineer oral stability whilst maintaining selectivity and potency. Various in vivo pharmacology tools are then used to quantify peptide exposure in relevant GI organs and tissues. This data can be used to optimize required GI exposure over the required time frame to achieve in vivo efficacy. This is complemented by formulation studies to enhance GI exposure. Finally, various biomarkers are also developed to correlate exposure with efficacy to guide candidate selection, dose selection and provide preliminary proof-of-concept of target engagement in clinical trials.
Future Applications of our Platform
We believe we have built a versatile, well-validated and unique discovery platform. For example, this peptide technology platform has been used to develop product candidates for diverse target classes including G-protein-coupled receptors, ion channels, transporters and cytokines for a variety of therapeutic areas. In the future we may tackle other GI diseases and expand our delivery techniques to include other organ/tissue systems, such as the lung and eye, which will provide potential opportunities to pursue a variety of diseases. In addition, the gut may communicate with the immune, central nervous, and endocrine systems, providing the potential of our GI-restricted approach to treat metabolic, cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Lastly, we intend to progress our platform to achieve systemic bioavailability with peptides, macrocyles and peptidomimetics, thereby enabling us to address systemic diseases.
Material Agreements
Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement
In May 2017, we and Janssen entered into an exclusive license and collaboration agreement for the clinical development, manufacture and potential commercialization of PTG-200 and any second-generation compounds worldwide for the treatment of CD and UC (the “Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement”). The Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement became effective on July 13, 2017 and was subsequently amended effective May 2019 (the “First Amendment”). The First Amendment expands the original collaboration by supporting efforts towards research and development of second-generation IL-23R antagonists. During the third quarter of 2017, we received a non-refundable, upfront cash payment of $50.0 million from Janssen. During the second quarter of 2019, we received a non-refundable cash payment of $25.0 million upon execution of the First Amendment. During the first quarter of 2020, we received a milestone payment of $5.0 million triggered by the identification and nomination of a second-generation development candidate. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis – Overview” and Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information.
Research Collaboration and License Agreement with Zealand Pharma A/S
In June 2012, we entered into a Research Collaboration and License Agreement with Zealand Pharma A/S (“Zealand”) to identify, optimize and develop novel disulfide-rich peptides to discover a hepcidin mimetic. We amended this agreement on February 28, 2014, at which point Protagonist assumed responsibility for the development program. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis – Contractual Obligations and Other Commitments” and Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information.
Competition
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we believe that our product candidates, technology, knowledge and experience provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from established and emerging pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others.
We believe our principal competition in the treatment of chronic iron overload disorders such as beta-thalassemia will be luspatercept (Acceleron/Celgene-BMS) and mitapivat (Agios). Although gene therapy is potentially curative for
beta-thalassemia, we believe that Bluebird Bio’s LentiGlobin will have limited application due to safety risks associated with its required “pre-conditioning” regimen, which is similar to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is infrequently utilized in beta-thalassemia due to its risk benefit profile in a younger patient population. Luspatercept and LentiGlobin have been approved in the United States and Europe, respectively, for TD beta-thalassemia, and are in Phase 3 development for beta-thalassemia, and mitapivat is in Phase 2 studies for beta-thalassemia. An IND for Luspatercept has been filed in the United States for thalassemia and MDS.
There are currently no approved orally delivered peptide-based α4β7 or IL‑23R products for IBD. We believe our principal competition in the treatment of IBD will come from companies with injectable agents in the anti-integrin class that are or will be approved by 2028, including:
|
|
·
|
|
Takeda’s Vedolizumab (Entyvio®) IV and SC (IV approved, SC Phase 3);
|
|
|
·
|
|
Roche’s Etrolizumab SC (Phase 3); and
|
|
|
·
|
|
Shire’s SHP-647 SC (Phase 3; divested as part of the Takeda acquisition of Shire - buyer to be determined).
|
In addition, orally delivered agents with novel mechanisms of action are approved or in development and may be approved for UC and/or CD prior to the launch of PTG-200 and PN-943. These include JAK inhibitors, pan-JAK tofacitinib (Xeljanz) approved in UC and next-generation JAK1 inhibitors filgotinib and upadacitinib, as well as S1P inhibitors, ozanimod, amiselmod and etrasimod. The anti-IL-23 antibodies are also demonstrating positive data in IBD. Our clinical asset PTG-200 will compete as the only orally delivered IL-23R antagonist.
Intellectual Property
We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our proprietary technology platform and on know-how, and continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position in the field of peptide-based therapeutics that may be important for the development of our business. We will also take advantage of regulatory protection afforded through data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available.
Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection 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 proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. 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. For more information, please see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
We own or co-own 16 issued U.S. patents, over 20 granted ex-U.S. patents, and numerous U.S. and ex-U.S. patent applications related to our clinical assets. We possess substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to the development and commercialization of peptide based therapeutic products. Our proprietary intellectual property, including patent and non-patent intellectual property, is generally directed to, for example, peptide-based therapeutic compositions, methods of using these peptide-based therapeutic compositions to treat or prevent disease, methods of manufacturing peptide-based therapeutic compositions, and other proprietary technologies and processes related to our lead product development candidates. Specific patents and patent applications are directed to compositions of α4β7 integrin peptides, IL-23R antagonist peptides, and hepcidin and enkephalin mimetics peptides, as well as methods of synthesizing and using these peptides to treat inflammatory disorders. Applications are currently pending in the United States and other
major jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, China, Japan, and Europe. We expect our patents and patent applications, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from October 2033 to July 2039 (excluding possible patent term extensions).
Our objective is to continue to expand our portfolio of patents and patent applications in order to protect our clinical assets and related peptide-based drug technologies.
We also license patents and patent applications directed to processes and methods related to our technology platform. These patents have issued in the United States and other major jurisdictions, including Australia and Europe. Some licensed patents are expired, and others are expected to expire before or by February 2023. Material aspects of our technology platform are protected by trade secrets and confidentiality agreements.
In addition to the above, we have established expertise and development capabilities focused in the areas of pre-clinical research and development, manufacturing and manufacturing process scale-up, quality control, quality assurance, regulatory affairs and clinical trial design and implementation. We believe that our focus and expertise will help us develop products based on our proprietary intellectual property.
The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing the non-provisional application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent.
The term of a patent that covers an FDA approved drug may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration of a U.S. patent as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Moreover, a patent can only be extended once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. When possible, we expect to apply for patent term extensions for patents covering our product candidates and their methods of use.
Trade Secrets
We rely on trade secrets to protect certain aspects of our technology, particularly in relation to our technology platform. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. 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. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For more information, please see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
Manufacturing
We contract with third parties for the manufacturing of all of our product candidates for pre-clinical and clinical studies and eventually for commercial supplies, and intend to continue to do so in the future. We do not own or operate any manufacturing facilities and we have no plans to build any owned clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We believe that the use of contract manufacturing organization (“CMOs”) eliminates the need for us to directly invest in manufacturing facilities, equipment and additional staff. Although we rely on contract manufacturers,
our personnel and consultants have extensive manufacturing and quality control experience overseeing CMOs. We regularly consider second source or back-up manufacturers for both active pharmaceutical ingredient and drug product manufacturing. To date, our third-party manufacturers have met the manufacturing requirements for the product candidates. We expect third-party manufacturers to be capable of providing needed quantities of our product candidates to meet anticipated full-scale commercial demands, but we have not assessed these capabilities beyond the supply of clinical materials to date. We currently engage CMOs on a “fee for services” basis for our current development plans. We plan to identify CMOs and enter into longer term contracts or commitments as we move our product candidates into Phase 3 clinical trials. We believe there are alternate sources of manufacturing that have been and could be engaged and enabled to satisfy our clinical and commercial requirements, however we cannot guarantee that identifying and establishing alternative relationships with such sources will be successful, cost effective, or completed on a timely basis without significant delay in the development or commercialization of our product candidates.
Government Regulation
The FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements upon companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs, such as those we are developing. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and export and import of our product candidates.
U.S. Government Regulation
In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve pending NDAs, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties.
The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
|
|
·
|
|
completion of pre-clinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s GLP regulations;
|
|
|
·
|
|
submission to the FDA of an IND application, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
|
|
|
·
|
|
approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”) at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;
|
|
|
·
|
|
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each indication;
|
|
|
·
|
|
submission to the FDA of an NDA;
|
|
|
·
|
|
satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;
|
|
|
·
|
|
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”) requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
FDA review and approval of the NDA.
|
Pre-clinical Studies
Pre-clinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some pre-clinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.
Clinical Trials
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND (or equivalent submission ex-US). In addition, an IRB or ethics committee (“EC”) at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) for public dissemination on their www.clinicaltrials.gov website.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:
|
|
·
|
|
Phase 1: The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness.
|
|
|
·
|
|
Phase 2: The drug is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.
|
|
|
·
|
|
Phase 3: The drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.
|
Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB or EC can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
Marketing Approval
Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the pre-clinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision.
In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (“PREA”), as amended and reauthorized, certain NDAs or supplements to an NDA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.
The FDA also may require submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) plan to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools.
The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity.
The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.
Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements.
After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or pre-clinical testing in order for FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.
Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.
Fast Track Designation
The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures. Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a fast track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides additional opportunities for interaction with the FDA’s review team and may allow for rolling review of NDA components before the completed application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. The FDA may decide to rescind the fast track designation if it determines that the qualifying criteria no longer apply.
Orphan Designation
The FDA may grant orphan designation to drugs or biologics intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, and there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and marketing the product for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting a NDA or Biologics License Application (“BLA”). After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
In the United States, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same product for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer with orphan exclusivity is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the approved orphan designated product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the 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 product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same product as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity.
Post-Approval Requirements
Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.
The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.
In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP requirements and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.
Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:
|
|
·
|
|
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;
|
|
|
·
|
|
fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;
|
|
|
·
|
|
refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs, or suspension or revocation of product approvals;
|
|
|
·
|
|
product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or
|
|
|
·
|
|
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
|
The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.
Coverage and Reimbursement
Sales of our product candidates, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the cost of such products will be covered and adequately reimbursed by third-party payors, such as government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed health care organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly limiting coverage and/or reducing reimbursements for medical products and services by challenging the prices and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. If these third-
party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.
There is no uniform policy requirement for coverage and reimbursement for drug products among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The coverage determination process can be a time-consuming and costly process that may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained or applied consistently. Even if reimbursement is provided, market acceptance of our products may be adversely affected if the amount of payment for our products proves to be unprofitable for health care providers or less profitable than alternative treatments, or if administrative burdens make our products less desirable to use.
In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our product candidates could reduce physician usage of our products candidates, once approved, and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively referred to as the ACA, enacted in March 2010, has had and is expected to continue to have a significant impact on the health care industry. The ACA, among other things, imposes a significant annual fee on certain companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. The ACA also increased the Medicaid rebate rate and expanded the rebate program to include Medicaid managed care organizations. It also contains substantial new provisions intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of health care spending, enhance remedies against health care fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the health care industry, impose new taxes and fees on pharmaceutical manufacturers, and impose additional health policy reforms, any or all of which may affect our business.
There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, as well as efforts by the current administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. For example, since January 2017, the President has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA were signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Tax Act”) includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and the medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurance tax. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amends the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”, and increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in the Medicare Part D program. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. It is unclear how this decision, future decisions, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business.
Other legislative changes have also been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 resulted in aggregate reductions in Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year,
which went into effect in 2013 and, following passage of subsequent legislation, including the BBA, will stay in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. New laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding.
Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the current administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. Further, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has solicited feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. While some measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the current administration have both stated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.
It is uncertain whether and how future legislation, whether domestic or foreign, could affect prospects for our product candidates or what actions foreign, federal, state, or private payors for health care treatment and services may take in response to any such health care reform proposals or legislation. Adoption of price controls and other cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures reforms may prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates.
Other Health Care Laws and Compliance Requirements
We will also be subject to health care regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we will conduct our business once our products are approved. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which governs the conduct of certain electronic health care transactions and protects the security and privacy of protected health information; the criminal health care fraud statutes under HIPAA also prohibits persons and entities from knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private payors, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services; the federal health care programs’ Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, 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 health care programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs; federal false claims laws and civil monetary penalties laws that prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim paid; and the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services information related to payments and other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members and, beginning in 2022, applicable manufacturers also will be required to report such information regarding payments and transfers of value provided, as well as ownership and investment interests held, during the previous year to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists and certified nurse-midwives.
The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the aforementioned federal anti-kickback and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. We may be subject to state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. In addition, we may be subject to reporting requirements under state transparency laws, as well as state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government that otherwise restricts certain payments that may be made to health care providers and entities. In addition, certain states and local jurisdictions require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.
Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exceptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If we or our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, exclusion of products from reimbursement under U.S. federal or state health care programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.
Government Regulation Outside of the United States
In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical studies and any commercial sales and distribution of our products.
Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical studies 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 study application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical studies.
The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.
Employees
As of December 31, 2019, we had 73 full-time employees, 54 of whom were in research and development, of which three hold an M.D. and 20 hold Ph.D. degrees. The remaining 19 employees worked in finance, business development, human resources and administrative support, of which three hold a Ph.D. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.
Corporate and Other Information
Protagonist Pty Limited (“Protagonist Australia”) was incorporated in Australia in September 2001. We were incorporated as a Delaware corporation in 2006, under the name Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc., and became the parent of Protagonist Australia pursuant to a transaction in which all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Protagonist
Australia was exchanged for shares of our common stock and Series A preferred stock. Our principal executive offices are located at 7707 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 140, Newark, California 94560. Our telephone number is (510) 474‑0170. Our website address is www.protagonist-inc.com. References to our website address do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document.
We make available, free of charge on our corporate website, copies of our Annual Reports on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K, Proxy Statements, and all amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act. We also show detail about stock trading by corporate insiders by providing access to SEC Forms 3, 4 and 5. This information may also be obtained from the SEC’s on-line database, which is located at www.sec.gov. Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol “PTGX.”
We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. As such, we are eligible for exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) December 31, 2021, (2) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenues are $1.0 billion or more, (3) the date on which we have, during the previous rolling three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities, and (4) the date on which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act).
Item 1A.Risk Factors
We have identified the following risks and uncertainties that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Investors should carefully consider the risks described below before making an investment decision. Our business faces significant risks and the risks described below may not be the only risks we face. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may also significantly impair our business operations. If any of these risks occur, our business, results of operations or financial condition could suffer, the market price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment in our common stock.
Risks Related to Clinical Development
We are an early clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with no approved products and no historical product revenue, which makes it difficult to assess our future prospects and financial results.
We are an early clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of uncertainty. Our operations to date have been limited to developing our technology, undertaking pre-clinical studies and early stage clinical trials of our pipeline candidates and conducting research to identify additional product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to generate product revenue or successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields such as biopharmaceutical drug discovery and development. Consequently, the ability to accurately assess our future operating results or business prospects is significantly more limited than if we had a longer operating history or approved products on the market.
We expect that our financial condition and operating results will fluctuate significantly from period to period due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including, but not limited to:
|
|
·
|
|
the clinical outcomes from the continued development of our product candidates;
|
|
|
·
|
|
our ability to obtain, as well as the timeliness of obtaining, additional funding to develop and potentially manufacture and commercialize our product candidates, including payments, if any, under our collaboration agreements;
|
|
|
·
|
|
competition from existing products as well as new products that may receive marketing approval;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the entry of generic or biosimilar versions of products that compete with our product candidates;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the timing of regulatory review and approval of our product candidates;
|
|
|
·
|
|
market acceptance of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval, if any;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the ability of patients or healthcare providers to obtain coverage or sufficient reimbursement for our products;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the ability of third party manufacturers to manufacture in accordance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”) our product candidates, conduct clinical trials with good clinical practices (“GCP”) and, if approved, for successful commercialization;
|
|
|
·
|
|
our ability to maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
our ability to attract and retain key personnel with appropriate expertise and experience to manage our business effectively.
|
Accordingly, the likelihood of our success must be evaluated in light of many potential challenges and variables associated with an early clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, many of which are outside of our control, and past results, including operating or financial results, should not be relied on as an indication of future results.
We are heavily dependent on the success of our product candidates in early-stage clinical development, and if any of these products fail to receive regulatory approval or are not successfully commercialized, our business would be adversely affected.
We currently have no product candidates that are in registrational or pivotal clinical trials or are approved for commercial sale, and we may never develop a marketable product. We expect that a substantial portion of our efforts and expenditures over the next few years will be devoted to our current product candidates and the development of other product candidates. We cannot be certain that our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or, if approved, be successfully commercialized. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, sale, marketing and distribution of our product candidates will remain subject to extensive regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and other regulatory authorities in the United States and other countries. In addition, even if approved, our pricing and reimbursement will be subject to further review and discussions with payors. We are not permitted to market any product candidate in the United States until after approval of a new drug application (“NDA”) from the FDA, or in any foreign countries until approval by corresponding regulatory authorities. We will need to conduct larger, more extensive clinical trials in the target patient populations to support a potential application for regulatory approval by the FDA or corresponding regulatory authorities, and we do not expect to be in a position to do so for the near term. We may not receive any preferential or expedited review of any application for regulatory approval by virtue of the fact that our product candidates target biological pathways that are also targeted by currently marketed injectable antibody drugs, and our product candidates will be subject to the regulatory review processes applicable to completely new drugs.
We have not previously submitted an NDA to the FDA, or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities, for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trial or receive regulatory approval. Filing an application and obtaining regulatory approval for a pharmaceutical product candidate is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process, and the regulatory authorities may delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including:
|
|
·
|
|
we may not be able to demonstrate that any of our product candidates are safe and effective to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require additional pre-clinical studies or clinical trials prior to granting approval, which would increase our costs and extend the pre-approval development process;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the results of our clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical or clinical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the FDA may disagree with the number, design, size, conduct or statistical analysis of one or more of our clinical trials;
|
|
|
·
|
|
Fast Track designation, which we have received for PTG-300 for the treatment of beta-thalassemia, may not lead to faster development or approval, and such designation may be revoked if we no longer meet the criteria for designation;
|
|
|
·
|
|
contract research organizations (“CROs”) that we retain to conduct clinical trials may take actions outside of our control that materially and adversely impact our clinical trials;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with, or not accept, our interpretation of data from our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the FDA may require development of a costly and extensive risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”), as a condition of approval;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require post-marketing studies as a condition of approval;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the FDA may identify deficiencies in our manufacturing processes or facilities or those of our third-party manufacturers which would be required to be corrected prior to regulatory approval; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
the success or further approval of competitor products approved in indications in which we undertake development of our product candidates may change the standard of care or change the standard for approval of our product candidate in our proposed indications.
|
Our product candidates will require additional research, clinical development, manufacturing activities, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, securing sources of commercial manufacturing supply and partnering with a commercial organization. We cannot assure you that our clinical trials for our product candidates will be initiated or completed in a timely manner or successfully, or at all. Further we cannot be certain that we plan to advance any other peptide-based product candidates into clinical trials. Moreover, any delay or setback in the development of any product candidate would be expected to adversely affect our business and cause our stock price to fall. For example, the announcement of the premature discontinuation of the global Phase 2 clinical trial of PTG-100 for the treatment of moderate-to-severe UC in March 2018 due to the interim analysis meeting futility criteria on the primary endpoint of clinical remission (that was subsequently confirmed to be due to human error in endoscopy reads by the original vendor) significantly depressed our stock price.
Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development.
Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical development process. The results of pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates and studies and trials of other products may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Any hypothesis formed from pre-clinical or early clinical observations for any of our product candidates may prove to be incorrect, and the data generated in animal models or observed in limited patient populations may be of limited value, and may not be applicable in clinical trials conducted under the controlled conditions required by applicable regulatory requirements.
In addition to our planned pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, we expect to have to complete at least two large scale, well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate substantial evidence of efficacy and safety for each product candidate we intend to commercialize. Further, given the patient populations for which we are developing therapeutics, we expect to have to evaluate long-term exposure to establish the safety of our therapeutics in a chronic dose setting. We have never conducted a Phase 3 clinical trial or submitted an NDA, and as a result, we have no history or track record to rely on when entering these phases of the development cycle. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through pre-clinical studies and initial clinical trials. Clinical trial failures may result from a multitude of factors including, but not limited to, flaws in trial design, dose selection, placebo effect, patient enrollment criteria and failure to demonstrate favorable safety and/or efficacy traits of the product candidate. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or pre-clinical studies.
We may experience delays in ongoing clinical trials, and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:
|
|
·
|
|
obtaining regulatory approvals to commence a clinical trial;
|
|
|
·
|
|
reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
|
|
|
·
|
|
fraud or negligence on the part of CROs, contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”), consultants or contractors;
|
|
|
·
|
|
obtaining institutional review board (“IRB”) or ethics committee (“EC”), approval at each site;
|
|
|
·
|
|
recruiting and retaining suitable patients to participate in a clinical trial;
|
|
|
·
|
|
having patients complete a clinical trial or return for post-treatment follow-up;
|
|
|
·
|
|
clinical sites deviating from the clinical trial protocol or dropping out of a clinical trial;
|
|
|
·
|
|
adding new clinical trial sites; or
|
|
|
·
|
|
manufacturing sufficient quantities of product candidate for use in clinical trials.
|
We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is modified, suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs or ECs of the institutions in which such clinical trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose a modification, suspension or termination due to a number of factors. In addition, there are a significant number of global clinical trials in IBD and in hematologic disorders that are currently ongoing, especially in Phases 2 and 3, making it highly competitive and challenging to recruit subjects. Furthermore, any negative results we may report in clinical trials of our product candidates, such as the premature termination of our Phase 2 clinical trial of PTG-100 for the treatment of moderate-to-severe UC, may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials of that same product candidate. Delays or failures in planned patient enrollment or retention may result in increased costs, program delays or both.
If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed and our ability to generate product revenue from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.
All of our peptide-based product candidates other than PTG-300, PTG-200 and PN-943 are in research or pre-clinical development and have not entered into clinical trials. If we are unable to develop, test and commercialize our peptide-based product candidates, our business will be adversely affected.
As part of our strategy, we seek to discover, develop and commercialize a portfolio of new peptide-based product candidates in addition to PTG-300, PTG-200, and PN-943. Research programs to identify appropriate biological targets pathways and product candidates require substantial scientific, technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are ultimately identified. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for many reasons.
Our proprietary peptide platform may not result in any products of commercial value.
We have developed a proprietary peptide technology platform to enable the identification, testing, design and development of new product candidates. We cannot assure you that our peptide platform will work, nor that any of these potential targets or other aspects of our proprietary drug discovery and design platform will yield product candidates that
could enter clinical development and, ultimately, be commercially valuable. Although we expect to continue to enhance the capabilities of our proprietary platform by developing and integrating existing and new research technologies, we may not be successful in any of our enhancement and development efforts. If our enhancement or development efforts are unsuccessful, we may not be able to advance our drug discovery capabilities as quickly as we expect or identify as many potential drug candidates as we desire.
Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties impacting safety that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in limiting the commercial opportunity for our product candidates if approved.
Undesirable side effects that may be caused by our product candidates or caused by similar approved drugs or product candidates in development by other companies, could cause us, an independent data monitoring committee or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or adverse events related to our product candidates. In such an event, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. In addition, drug-related side effects could negatively affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial and even if our clinical trials are completed and our product candidate is approved, drug-related side effects could restrict the label or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences could significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
Moreover, since our product candidates PTG-200 and PN-943 have been developed for indications for which injectable antibody drugs have been approved, we expect that our clinical trials would need to show a risk/benefit profile that is competitive with those existing products and product candidates in order to obtain regulatory approval or, if approved, a product label that is favorable for commercialization.
We have focused our limited resources to pursue particular product candidates and indications, and consequently, we may fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.
Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we have focused on research programs and product candidates mainly on the development of PTG-300 for treatment of certain rare blood disorders and the discovery and development of PTG-200, including any second-generation compounds, and PN-943, GI-restricted drugs that target the same biological pathways as currently marketed injectable antibody drugs for the treatment of IBD. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration partnerships, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements
We have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future. We have never generated any revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.
We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception. Our net loss for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $77.2 million, $38.9 million and $37.0 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, we had an accumulated deficit of $217.7 million and $140.5 million, respectively. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. We expect to continue to incur significant research, development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations and product development, including clinical development activities under the Janssen License and
Collaboration Agreement, and as a result, we expect to continue to incur losses in the future as we continue our development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our peptide-based product candidates.
We do not anticipate generating revenue from sales of products for the foreseeable future, if ever, and we do not currently have any product candidates in registration or pivotal clinical trials. If any of our peptide-based product candidates fail in clinical trials or do not gain regulatory approval, or even if approved, fail to achieve market acceptance, we may never become profitable. Furthermore, any revenues generated from the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement may not be sufficient alone to sustain our operations as there can be no assurance that we will receive any opt-in election fees, development, regulatory, or sales milestone payments, or royalties from Janssen in the future pursuant to the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue operations.
If one or more of our peptide-based product candidates is approved for commercial sale and we retain commercial rights, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with manufacturing and commercializing such approved peptide-based product candidate. Therefore, even if we are able to generate revenue from the sale of any approved product, we may never become profitable.
We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.
Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. Developing pharmaceutical product candidates, including conducting pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, is expensive. We will require substantial additional future capital in order to complete clinical development and, if we are successful, to commercialize any of our current product candidates. If the FDA or any foreign regulatory agency, such as the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), requires that we perform studies or trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate with respect to the development of any of our product candidates, or repeat studies or trials, our expenses would further increase beyond what we currently expect, and any delay resulting from such further or repeat studies or trials could also result in the need for additional financing. Further, in the event our Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement is terminated, we may not receive any development fees, milestone payments, or royalties under the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement, and we would be required to fund all clinical development, manufacturing, and commercial activities for PTG-200 and any second-generation compounds, which would require us to raise additional capital or establish alternative collaborations with third-party collaboration partners, which may not be possible.
As of December 31, 2019, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $133.0 million. Based upon our current operating plan and expected expenditures, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities and proceeds from our debt facility will be sufficient to fund our operations for at least the next 12 months. However, we expect that we will need to raise substantial additional funds in the future in order to complete clinical development or commercialize any of our product candidates. Our funding requirements and the timing of our need for additional capital are subject to change based on a number of factors, including:
|
|
·
|
|
the scope, progress, results and costs of drug discovery, clinical development, laboratory testing and clinical trials for our product candidates;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the number of product candidates that we intend to develop using our technology platform;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the costs, timing and outcome of any regulatory review of our product candidates;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the timing and achievement of development, regulatory, and sales milestones resulting in the payment to us from Janssen under the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement and the timing of receipt of such payments, if any;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the costs and timing of commercialization activities, including manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution for any product candidates that receive marketing approval;
|
|
|
·
|
|
Janssen’s ability to successfully market and sell PTG-200 and any second-generation compounds upon regulatory approval and clearance, in the United States and other countries;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the degree and rate of market acceptance of any products launched by us or our partners;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the costs of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing any patent claims and other intellectual property rights;
|
|
|
·
|
|
our need and ability to hire and retain existing and additional personnel;
|
|
|
·
|
|
our ability to establish and maintain collaborations on favorable terms, if at all, and the payment and achievement of the fees, milestone payments and royalties under those collaborations, including the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
the emergence of competing technologies or other adverse market developments.
|
Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our peptide-based product candidates or technologies.
We may seek additional funding through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and/or licensing arrangements. Additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. The incurrence of indebtedness and/or the issuance of certain equity securities could result in fixed payment obligations and could also result in certain additional restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur debt and/or issue additional equity, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. In addition, the issuance of additional equity securities by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline. In the event that we enter into collaborations and/or licensing arrangements in order to raise capital, we may be required to accept unfavorable terms, including relinquishing or licensing to a third party on unfavorable terms our rights to our proprietary technology platform or peptide-based product candidates that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves or potentially reserve for future potential arrangements when we might be able to achieve more favorable terms. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities, including sales of common stock pursuant to our sales agreement with Jefferies LLC (the “Sales Agreement”), your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. If we issue common stock or securities convertible into common stock, our common stockholders would experience additional dilution and, as a result, our stock price may decline.
Covenants in our credit and security agreement restrict our business and operations in many ways and if we do not effectively manage our covenants, our financial conditions and results of operations could be adversely affected.
In October 2019, we entered into a credit and security agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) pursuant to which we have borrowed $10.0 million to date and an additional $40.0 million is available, subject to specified availability periods and the satisfaction of certain conditions. All of our assets, except for intellectual property and certain other customary excluded property, are security for our borrowings under the Credit Agreement. The Credit Agreement contains customary affirmative and negative covenants, including, among other things, restrictions on indebtedness, liens, investments, mergers, dispositions, prepayment of other indebtedness and dividends and other distributions, any of which could restrict our business and operations, particularly our ability to respond to changes in our business or to take specified actions to take advantage of certain business opportunities that may be presented to us.
Our failure to comply with any of the covenants could result in a default under the Credit Agreement, which would permit the lenders to declare all or part of any outstanding borrowings to be immediately due and payable, or to refuse to permit additional borrowings under the loan and security agreement. If we are unable to repay those amounts, the lenders under the Credit Agreement could proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure that debt, which would seriously harm our business. In addition, before we borrow additional funds under the Credit Agreement, we must first satisfy ourselves that we will have access to existing and future alternate sources of capital, including cash flow
from our own operations, equity capital markets or debt capital markets in order to repay any principal borrowed, which we may be unable to do, in which case, our liquidity and ability to fund our operations may be substantially impaired.
Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties
If Janssen does not elect to continue the development of PTG-200 or any second-generation compounds, our business and business prospects would be significantly harmed.
Under the terms of the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement, Janssen may terminate the research program for second-generation compounds after an agreed upon period, and retains the right to terminate the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement for convenience and without cause on written notice of a certain period. In addition, Janssen will generally retain control over the further clinical development of PTG-200 and the clinical development of second-generation compounds. Janssen’s decisions with respect to such development will affect the timing and availability of potential future opt-in, milestone and royalty payments, if any. If the research program or the Janssen License and Collaboration agreement are terminated early, or if Janssen’s development activities are terminated early or suspended for an extended period of time, or are otherwise unsuccessful, our business and business prospects would be materially adversely affected.
If there are any safety or efficacy results that cause the benefit-risk profile of PTG-200 or any second-generation compounds to become unacceptable, clinical development would be delayed or halted, and as a result, Janssen may terminate the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement, which would severely and adversely affect our business prospects, and may cause us to cease operations.
PTG-200 or any second-generation compounds may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects or other characteristics adversely affecting its safety, efficacy or cost effectiveness that could prevent or limit its approval for marketing and successful commercial use, or that could delay or prevent the commencement and/or completion of clinical trials. If regulatory submissions requesting approval to market PTG-200 or any such second-generation compounds are submitted, after reviewing the data in such submissions, the FDA and regulatory agencies in other countries may conclude that the overall benefit-risk profile of treatment is unacceptable, and clinical development would be delayed or halted. Any of these events would severely harm our business and prospects.
Clinical trials by their nature examine the effects of a potential therapy in a sample of the potential future patient population. As such, clinical trials conducted with PTG-200 or any second-generation compounds may not uncover all possible adverse events that patients may experience. We or Janssen may in the future observe or report dose-limiting or other safety issues in potential future clinical trials.
The occurrence of these events may cause Janssen to abandon its development of PTG-200 or any second-generation compounds entirely and terminate the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement. Any termination of the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement by Janssen would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, business prospects and the future of PTG-200 and any second-generation compounds.
There may be disagreements between Janssen and Protagonist during the term of the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement, and if they are not settled amicably or in the favor of Protagonist, the result may harm our business.
We are subject to the risk of possible disagreements with Janssen, including those regarding the development, manufacture, and commercialization of PTG-200 or any second-generation compounds, interpretation of the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement, and ownership of proprietary rights. In addition, in certain circumstances, we may believe that a particular milestone has been achieved and Janssen may disagree with our belief. In that case, receipt of that milestone payment may be delayed or may never be received, which would adversely affect our financial condition and may require us to adjust our operating plans. The joint governance structure contemplated by the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement will cease to have decision-making authority once the development term ends, which will preclude our ability to participate in any further decision-making for PTG-200 and any second-generation
compounds. As a result of possible disagreements with Janssen, we also may become involved in litigation or arbitration, which would be time-consuming for our management and employees and expensive.
We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining development and commercialization collaborations, any collaboration arrangements we enter into in the future may not be successful, and any potential partner may not devote sufficient resources to the development or commercialization of our product candidates or may otherwise fail in development or commercialization efforts, which could adversely affect our ability to develop certain of our product candidates and our financial condition and operating results.
Other than our Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement, we have no active collaborations for any of our product candidates. Even if we are able to establish other collaboration arrangements, any such collaboration may not ultimately be successful, which could have a negative impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and growth prospects. While we currently plan to enter into collaborations that are limited to certain identified territories, there can be no assurance that we would maintain significant rights or control of future development and commercialization of such product candidate. Accordingly, if we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we may relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate to the third party, and that partner may not devote sufficient resources to the development or commercialization of our product candidate or may otherwise fail in development or commercialization efforts, in which event the development and commercialization of the product candidate in the collaboration could be delayed or terminated and our business could be substantially harmed. In some cases, we may be responsible for continuing development of a product candidate or research program under a collaboration, and the payments we receive from our partner may be insufficient to cover the cost of this development or may result in a dispute between the parties. Moreover, collaborations and sales and marketing arrangements are complex and time consuming to negotiate, document and implement, and they may require substantial resources to maintain, which may be detrimental to the development of our other product candidates.
We are subject to a number of additional risks associated with our dependence on collaborations with third parties, the occurrence of which could cause our collaboration arrangements to fail. Conflicts may arise between us and partners, such as conflicts concerning the implementation of development plans, efforts and resources dedicated to the product candidate, interpretation of clinical data, the achievement of milestones, the interpretation of financial provisions or the ownership of intellectual property developed during the collaboration. Any such disagreement between us and a partner could result in one or more of the following, each of which could delay or prevent the development or commercialization of our product candidates, and in turn prevent us from generating sufficient revenue to achieve or maintain profitability:
|
|
·
|
|
reductions in the payment of royalties or other payments we believe are due pursuant to the applicable collaboration arrangement;
|
|
|
·
|
|
actions taken by a partner inside or outside our collaboration which could negatively impact our rights or benefits under our collaboration; or
|
|
|
·
|
|
unwillingness on the part of a partner to keep us informed regarding the progress of its development and commercialization activities or to permit public disclosure of the results of those activities.
|
Any future collaborations that we enter into may not be successful. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which may include that:
|
|
·
|
|
collaborators have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to collaborations;
|
|
|
·
|
|
collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of our product candidates or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial results, changes in their strategic focus due to the acquisition of competitive products, availability of funding or other external factors;
|
|
|
·
|
|
collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial, abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;
|
|
|
·
|
|
collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our products or product candidates;
|
|
|
·
|
|
we could grant exclusive rights to our collaborators that would prevent us from collaborating with others;
|
|
|
·
|
|
collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our intellectual property or proprietary information in a way that gives rise to actual or threatened litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential liability;
|
|
|
·
|
|
disputes may arise between us and a collaborator that causes the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of our current or future products or that results in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources;
|
|
|
·
|
|
collaborations may be terminated, and, if terminated, may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable current or future products; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
a collaborator’s sales and marketing activities or other operations may not be in compliance with applicable laws resulting in civil or criminal proceedings.
|
We rely on third parties to conduct our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or do not meet regulatory requirements or expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain timely regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.
We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third party CROs to monitor and manage clinical trials and collect data for our pre-clinical studies and clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that their conduct meets regulatory requirements and that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. Thus, we and our CROs are required to comply with good clinical practices (“GCPs”), which are regulations and guidelines promulgated by the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept the data or require us to perform additional clinical trials before considering our filing for regulatory approval or approving our marketing application. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCPs. While we have agreements governing activities of our CROs, we may have limited influence over their actual performance and the qualifications of their personnel conducting work on our behalf. In addition, significant portions of the clinical studies for our peptide-based product candidates are expected to be conducted outside of the United States, which will make it more difficult for us to monitor CROs and perform visits of our clinical trial sites and will force us to rely heavily on CROs to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and compliance with applicable regulations, including GCPs. Failure to comply with applicable regulations in the conduct of the clinical studies for our peptide-based product candidates may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.
If any of our relationships with these third party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote
sufficient time and resources to our pre-clinical and clinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our peptide-based product candidates. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our peptide-based product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase substantially and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed significantly.
Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.
We face a variety of manufacturing risks and rely on third parties to manufacture our drug substance and clinical drug product and we intend to rely on third parties to produce commercial supplies of any approved peptide-based product candidate.
Our clinical trials must be conducted with product manufactured under cGMP and for Europe and other major regions, International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines, and we rely on contract manufacturers to manufacture and provide product for us that meet these requirements. We do not currently have nor do we plan to acquire the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our pre-clinical and clinical drug supplies and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our peptide-based product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. We expect to continue to depend on contract manufacturers for the foreseeable future. As we proceed with the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates, we will need to increase the scale at which the drug is manufactured which will require the development of new manufacturing processes to potentially reduce the cost of goods. We will rely on our internal process research and development efforts and those of contract manufacturers to develop the GMP manufacturing processes required for cost-effective and large scale production. If these efforts are not successful in developing cost-effective processes and if the contract manufacturers are not successful in converting it to commercial scale manufacturing, then our development and/or commercialization of our product candidates could be materially adversely affected. Moreover, our contract manufacturers are the sole source of supply for our clinical product candidates. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues, natural disasters, pandemics or otherwise, we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or termination of our clinical study and planned development program, or be required to restart or repeat, any ongoing clinical trials.
We also rely on our contract manufacturers to purchase from third party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our peptide-based product candidates for our clinical trials. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our drugs and there may be a need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our peptide-based product candidates for our clinical trials, and if approved, for commercial sale. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a peptide-based product candidate to complete the clinical trial, any significant delay in the supply of a peptide-based product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a contract manufacturer or other third party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our peptide-based product candidates. If our contract manufacturers or we are unable to purchase these raw materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our peptide-based product candidates, the commercial launch of our peptide-based product candidates would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our peptide-based product candidates.
If we submit an application for regulatory approval of any of our product candidates, the facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates will be subject to inspection and approval by the FDA or
other regulatory authorities. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our peptide-based product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our peptide-based product candidates, if approved.
Risks Related to Regulatory Approval
The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.
Our business and future profitability is substantially dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and then successfully commercialize our peptide-based product candidates. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our peptide-based product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA, the EMA or any other foreign regulatory authority, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our peptide-based product candidates. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable, typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors. Approval policies, regulations and the types and amount of clinical and manufacturing data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we have in development or may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.
Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:
|
|
·
|
|
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;
|
|
|
·
|
|
we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate is safe and effective for its proposed indication;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the results of clinical trials may fail to achieve the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval;
|
|
|
·
|
|
we may be unable to demonstrate that a product candidate’s clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data submitted in support of regulatory approval;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the data collected from pre-clinical studies and clinical trials of our peptide-based product candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA, supplemental NDA, or other regulatory submissions necessary to obtain regulatory approval;
|
|
|
·
|
|
we or our contractors may not meet the GMP and other applicable requirements for manufacturing processes, procedures, documentation and facilities necessary for approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
changes to the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities with respect to our product candidates may result in our clinical data becoming insufficient for approval.
|
In addition, even if we were to obtain regulatory approval, regulatory authorities may approve our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than what we requested approval for, may include safety warnings or
other restrictions that may negatively impact the commercial viability of our product candidates, including the potential for a favorable price or reimbursement at a level that we would otherwise intend to charge for our products. Likewise, regulatory authorities may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials or the conduct of an expensive REMS, which could significantly reduce the potential for commercial success or viability of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing possibilities could materially harm the prospects for our product candidates and business and operations.
We have not previously submitted an NDA, a Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”), or any corresponding drug approval filing to the FDA, the EMA or any comparable foreign authority for any peptide-based product candidate. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if we complete such filings. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.
Even if we obtain and maintain approval for any of our product candidates from the FDA, we may never obtain approval for our product candidates outside of the United States, which would limit our market opportunities and adversely affect our business.
Sales of our product candidates outside of the United States will be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical trials and marketing approval and, to the extent that we retain commercial rights following clinical development, we would plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize our peptide-based product candidates in the United States, the EU and additional foreign countries. Even if the FDA grants marketing approval for a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries must also approve the manufacturing and marketing of the product candidates in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional pre-clinical studies or clinical trials. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. Further, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries and regulatory approval in one country does not ensure approval in any other country, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our peptide-based product candidates will be harmed and our business will be adversely affected.
We may fail to obtain orphan drug designations from the FDA and/or EU for our product candidates, as applicable, and even if we obtain such designations, we may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.
Our strategy includes filing for orphan drug designation where available for our product candidates. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as one occurring in a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug or biologic will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA or BLA, to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity.
PTG-300 has received orphan drug designation for the treatment of patients with beta-thalassemia from the FDA and EU. Despite this designation, we may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including market exclusivity. We may not be the first to obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate for the beta-thalassemia or any other orphan-designated indication that we may pursue due to the uncertainties associated with
developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the orphan-designated disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug designation exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties may receive and be approved for the same condition, and only the first applicant to receive approval will receive the benefits of marketing exclusivity. Even after an orphan-designated product is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a later drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior if it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, while we may seek orphan drug designation for our product candidates, we may never receive such designations.
Risks Related to Commercialization of our Product Candidates
We currently have no marketing and sales organization. To the extent any of our peptide-based product candidates for which we maintain commercial rights is approved for marketing, if we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our peptide-based product candidates, we may not be able to effectively market and sell any peptide-based product candidates, or generate product revenue.
We currently do not have a marketing or sales organization for the marketing, sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products. In order to commercialize any peptide-based product candidates that receive marketing approval, we would have to build marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. In the event of successful development of any of our product candidates, we may elect to build a targeted specialty sales force which will be expensive and time consuming. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. With respect to our peptide-based product candidates, we may choose to partner with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems, and in the case of the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement, we may elect to exercise our Co-Detailing Option (as described below), which would require us to establish a U.S. sales team. If we are not successful in commercializing our peptide-based product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future revenue will be materially and adversely impacted.
We have not yet negotiated our agreement with Janssen specifying all of the terms of our Co-Detailing Option and would need to develop our own internal sales force.
Pursuant to the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement, we have an option, which, if PTG-200 and/or any second-generation compounds are approved for commercial sale, allows us to elect to provide up to 30% of the PTG-200 selling effort in the United States with sales force personnel (the “Co-Detailing Option”). While the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement includes the material terms of our Co-Detailing Option, Janssen and we mutually agreed to negotiate a separate agreement specifying the detailed activities and responsibilities in respect of the marketing and co-promotion following our election to exercise our Co-Detailing Option. We will need to negotiate this separate agreement with Janssen and, as a result, Janssen may place restrictions or additional obligations on us, including financial obligations. Any restrictions or additional obligations may restrict our co-detailing activities or involve more significant financial or other obligations than we currently anticipate. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales force capabilities. Developing an internal sales force and function will require substantial expenditures and will be time-consuming, may expose us to unforeseen costs and expenses, and we may not be able to effectively recruit, train or retain sales personnel. Accordingly, we may be unable to establish our own sales force which could effectively preclude our ability to take any advantage of participating in co-detailing PTG-200 and/or any second-generation compounds in the United States. In addition, any sales force we establish may not be effective, or may be less effective than the any sales force that Janssen utilizes to promote PTG-200 and/or any second-generation compounds. In such event, commercialization may be adversely affected, which could materially and adversely affect any sales milestone payments or royalties we may receive under the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement.
Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, they may fail to achieve market acceptance by physicians, patients, government payors (including Medicare and Medicaid programs), private insurers, and other third-party payors, or others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.
If any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, government payors, other third-party payors and other healthcare providers. If any of our approved products fail to achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant revenue to become profitable. The degree of market acceptance, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:
|
|
·
|
|
the efficacy and potential advantages compared to alternative treatments;
|
|
|
·
|
|
effectiveness of sales, marketing and distribution efforts;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the willingness of the medical community to offer customers our product candidates in addition to or in the place of current injectable therapies;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the availability of government and third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the prevalence and severity of any side effects; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
any restrictions on the use of our product candidates together with other medications.
|
Because we expect sales of our peptide-based product candidates, if approved, to generate revenue for us to achieve profitability, the failure of our peptide-based product candidates to achieve market acceptance would harm our business and could require us to seek collaborations or undertake additional financings sooner than we would otherwise plan.
Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.
In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any peptide-based product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.
For example, in the United States in March 2010, the ACA was enacted to increase access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for health care and the health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The law has continued the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and increased the industry’s regulatory burdens and operating costs.
There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, as well as efforts by the current administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, the President has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress has
considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been enacted. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Tax Act”) includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and the medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurance tax. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (the “BBA”) among other things, amends the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” Congress may consider other legislation to repeal or replace other elements of the ACA. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. It is unclear how this decision, future decisions, subsequent appeals and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business.
In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional action is taken by Congress. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period in which the government may recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.
Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the current administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. Further, the current administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal health programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. While some of the measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the current administration have both stated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved.
We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare therapies, which could result in reduced demand for our peptide-based product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
Legislative and regulatory proposals have also been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.
Governments outside the United States tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.
In some countries, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product candidate. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after coverage and reimbursement have been obtained. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies, which is time-consuming and costly. If coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates are unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed, possibly materially.
We currently conduct, and intend to continue to conduct, a substantial portion of the clinical trials for our product candidates outside of the United States. If approved, we may commercialize our product candidates abroad. We will thus be subject to the risks of doing business outside of the United States.
We currently conduct, and intend to continue to conduct, a substantial portion of our clinical trials outside of the United States and, if approved, we intend to also market our peptide-based product candidates outside of the United States. We are thus subject to risks associated with doing business outside of the United States. Our business and financial results in the future could be adversely affected due to a variety of factors associated with conducting development and marketing of our peptide-based product candidates, if approved, outside of the United States, including:
|
|
·
|
|
medical standard of care and diagnostic criteria may differ in foreign jurisdictions, which may impact our ability to enroll and successfully complete trials designed for U.S. marketing;
|
|
|
·
|
|
efforts to develop an international sales, marketing and distribution organization may increase our expenses, divert our management’s attention from the acquisition or development of peptide-based product candidates or cause us to forgo profitable licensing opportunities in these geographies;
|
|
|
·
|
|
changes in a specific country’s or region’s political and cultural climate or economic condition;
|
|
|
·
|
|
unexpected changes in foreign laws and regulatory requirements;
|
|
|
·
|
|
difficulty of effective enforcement of contractual provisions and intellectual property protections in foreign countries;
|
|
|
·
|
|
trade-protection measures, import or export licensing requirements such as Export Administration Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Commerce and fines, penalties or suspension or revocation of export privileges;
|
|
|
·
|
|
regulations under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar foreign anti-corruption laws;
|
|
|
·
|
|
differing payor reimbursement regimes, governmental payors or patient self-pay systems and price controls;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the effects of applicable foreign tax structures and potentially adverse tax consequences; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
significant adverse changes in foreign currency exchange rates which could make the cost of our clinical trials, to the extent conducted outside of the U.S., more expensive.
|
If we are unable to anticipate and address these risks properly, our business and financial results will be harmed.
Our business could be adversely affected by the effects of health epidemics, including the recent coronavirus, or COVID-19, outbreak, in regions where we or third parties on which we rely have significant manufacturing and distribution facilities, concentrations of clinical trial sites or other business operations. We have clinical trial sites in countries that have been directly affected by COVID-19, and depend on outsourced manufacturing operations, including China, for various stages of our supply chain. In addition, if COVID-19 becomes a pandemic, it could materially affect our operations globally, including at our headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area and at our clinical trial sites throughout the globe.
Our business could be adversely affected by health epidemics in regions where we have significant manufacturing and distribution facilities, concentrations of clinical trial sites or other business operations.
If the recent coronavirus, or COVID-19, outbreak continues to spread, we may need to limit operations or implement limitations, including work from home policies. There is a risk that some countries or regions may be less effective at containing COVID-19, or it may be more difficult to contain if the outbreak reaches a larger population or broader geography, in which case the risks described herein could be elevated significantly.
In particular, some of our suppliers of certain materials, including certain critical active pharmaceutical ingredients, used in the production of our drug products are located in China, and possibly other affected areas. While many of these materials may be obtained by more than one supplier, including suppliers outside of China, port closures, country lockdowns, and other restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak in a region may disrupt our supply chain or limit our ability to obtain sufficient materials for our drug products. While we are closely monitoring developments and are implementing and evaluating new mitigation strategies, the full impact of this outbreak is uncertain at this time and any prolonged disruption to our manufacturers and distributors could significantly disrupt our supply chain and could have a material adverse effect on our development plans and business.
In addition, our clinical trials may be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Site initiation and patient enrollment may be delayed or disrupted due to prioritization of hospital and medical resources toward the COVID-19 outbreak or inability to access hospital and other clinical sites. Further, site initiation and patient enrollment may be delayed due to difficulties related to clinical site investigators, clinical site staff and patients who may be reluctant to travel to medical sites to comply with clinical trial protocols or be monitored. If COVID-19 becomes a pandemic, it may delay enrollment in our global clinical trials, some patients may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services, and we may be unable to obtain data from blood samples or other required medical procedures.
The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 outbreak or a similar health epidemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our supply chain, clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could have a material impact on our operations, and, therefore, we will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation closely and implement risk mitigation as needed.
Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We have competitors worldwide, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic pharmaceutical companies as well as universities and other research institutions.
Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff, and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations. As a result, these companies may obtain regulatory approval more rapidly than we are able and may be more effective in selling and marketing their products. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of newer technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing, on an exclusive basis, pharmaceutical products that are easier to develop, more effective or less costly than any product candidates that we are currently developing or that we may develop. If approved, our product candidates are expected to face competition from commercially available drugs as well as drugs that are in the development pipelines of our competitors.
Pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make our product candidates less competitive. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability or safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. If our competitors succeed in obtaining FDA, EMA or other regulatory approval or discovering, developing and commercializing drugs before we do, there would be a material adverse impact on the future prospects for our product candidates and business.
We believe that our ability to successfully compete will depend on, among other things:
|
|
·
|
|
the efficacy and safety of our product candidates, in particular compared to competitor products;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the time it takes for our product candidates to complete clinical development and receive regulatory approval, if at all;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the ability to commercialize and market any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the price of our products, including in comparison to branded or generic competitors;
|
|
|
·
|
|
whether coverage and adequate levels of reimbursement are available under private and governmental health insurance plans, including Medicare;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the ability to protect intellectual property rights related to our product candidates;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the ability to manufacture and sell commercial quantities of any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
acceptance of any of our approved product candidates by physicians, payors and other healthcare providers.
|
Because our research approach depends on our proprietary technology platform, it may be difficult for us to continue to successfully compete in the face of rapid changes in technology. If we fail to continue to advance our technology platform, technological change may impair our ability to compete effectively and technological advances or
products developed by our competitors may render our technologies or product candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical.
If we fail to comply with state and federal healthcare regulatory laws, we could face substantial penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, exclusion from participation in governmental healthcare programs, and the curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, operations, and financial condition.
Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any future product candidates we may develop or any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may affect the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we would market, sell and distribute our products. Even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:
|
|
·
|
|
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the federal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”);
|
|
|
·
|
|
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and their implementing regulations, which also imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, on HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the federal civil monetary penalties statute;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws.
|
Further, the ACA, among other things, amended the intent requirements of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain criminal statutes governing healthcare fraud. Any violations of these laws, or any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could result in a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition.
We have entered into consulting and scientific advisory board arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, including some who could influence the use of our product candidates, if approved. While we have worked to structure our arrangements to comply with applicable laws, because of the complex and far-reaching nature of these laws, regulatory agencies may view these transactions as prohibited arrangements that must be restructured, or discontinued, or for which we could be subject to other significant penalties. We could be adversely affected if regulatory agencies interpret our financial relationships with providers who may influence the ordering of and use our product candidates, if approved, to be in violation of applicable laws.
The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have continued to increase their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Additionally, as a result of these investigations, healthcare providers and entities may have to agree to additional onerous compliance and reporting requirements as part
of a consent decree or corporate integrity agreement. Any such investigation or settlement could increase our costs or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business.
If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If, and to the extent that, Janssen or we are unable to comply with these regulations, our ability to earn potential royalties from worldwide net sales of PTG-200 would be materially and adversely impacted. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. The imposition of any of these penalties or other commercial limitations could negatively impact our collaboration with Janssen or cause Janssen to terminate the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement, either of which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our future success depends on our ability to retain our executive officers and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel. If we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.
Our industry has experienced a high rate of turnover of management personnel in recent years. Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceuticals industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific, medical and regulatory personnel. We are highly dependent on our existing senior management team. In order to induce valuable employees to continue their employment with us, we have provided stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time is significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to maintain retention incentives or counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. All of our employees may terminate their employment with us at any time, with or without notice. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers or other key employees and our inability to find suitable replacements would harm our research and development efforts, our collaboration efforts, as well as our business, financial condition and prospects. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled and experienced personnel with scientific, medical, regulatory, manufacturing and management training and skills.
We may not be able to attract or retain qualified personnel in the future due to the intense competition for a limited number of qualified personnel among biopharmaceutical, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. Many of the other biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. Any or all of these competing factors may limit our ability to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, which could negatively affect our ability to successfully develop and commercialize peptide-based product candidates and to grow our business and operations as currently contemplated.
We may need to expand the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.
As of December 31, 2019, we had 73 full-time employees, including 54 employees engaged in research and development. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop and we continue to operate as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, scientific, sales, marketing, development, regulatory, manufacturing, financial and other resources. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:
|
|
·
|
|
designing and managing our clinical trials effectively;
|
|
|
·
|
|
identifying, recruiting, maintaining, motivating and integrating additional employees;
|
|
|
·
|
|
managing our manufacturing and development efforts effectively; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
improving our managerial, development, operational and financial systems and controls.
|
As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage relationships with strategic collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, suppliers, vendors and other third parties. Our future financial performance and our ability to develop and commercialize our peptide-based product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. We may not be successful in accomplishing these tasks in growing our company, and our failure to accomplish any of them could adversely affect our business and operations.
Significant disruptions of information technology systems or breaches of data security could adversely affect our business.
Our business is increasingly dependent on critical, complex and interdependent information technology systems, including Internet-based systems, to support business processes as well as internal and external communications. The size and complexity of our internal computer systems and those of our CROs, contract manufacturers, collaboration partner, and other third parties on which we rely may make them potentially vulnerable to breakdown, telecommunications and electrical failures, malicious intrusion and computer viruses that may result in the impairment of key business processes. In addition, our systems are potentially vulnerable to data security breaches-whether by employees or others-that may expose sensitive data to unauthorized persons. Such data security breaches could lead to the loss of trade secrets or other intellectual property or could lead to the public exposure of personally identifiable information (including sensitive personal information) of our employees, collaborators, clinical trial patients, and others. A data security breach or privacy violation that leads to disclosure or modification of or prevents access to patient information, including personally identifiable information or protected health information, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws, subject us to mandatory corrective action, require us to verify the correctness of database contents and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect personal data, resulting in increased costs or loss of revenue. If we are unable to prevent such data security breaches or privacy violations or implement satisfactory remedial measures, our operations could be disrupted, and we may suffer loss of reputation, financial loss and other regulatory penalties because of lost or misappropriated information, including sensitive patient data. While we have implemented security measures to protect our data security and information technology systems, such measures may not prevent such events. Any such disruptions and breaches of security could have a material adverse effect on the development of our product candidates as well as our business and financial condition.
Our insurance policies are expensive and only protect us from some business risks, which will leave us exposed to significant uninsured liabilities.
We do not carry insurance for all categories of risk that our business may encounter. Some of the policies we currently maintain include general liability, employment practices liability, property, cyber, auto liability, workers’ compensation, clinical trial, products liability and directors’ and officers’ insurance. We do not know, however, if we will be able to maintain insurance with adequate levels of coverage to insure risks which could arise from our operations. Any significant uninsured losses or liabilities may require us to pay substantial amounts from corporate cash intended to fund operations, which would adversely affect our financial position and results of operations.
If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.
We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and 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.
If we, or our contractors or agents are unable to comply with federal, state and county environmental and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling of biohazardous materials, chemicals and various radioactive compounds, considerable additional costs or liabilities could be assessed that would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. We, our collaborators, contractors or agents may be required to incur significant costs to comply with current or future environmental laws and regulations and may be adversely affected by the cost of compliance with these laws and regulations.
Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for 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. 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.
Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants and vendors may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates: (i) FDA laws and regulations or those of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, (ii) manufacturing standards, (iii) federal and state data privacy, security, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or (iv) laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, creating fraudulent data in our pre-clinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation of drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and third-parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.
If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of any of our peptide-based product candidates, if approved.
We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our peptide-based product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to stop development or, if approved, limit commercialization of our peptide-based product candidates.
Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:
|
|
·
|
|
delay or termination of clinical studies;
|
|
|
·
|
|
injury to our reputation;
|
|
|
·
|
|
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
|
|
|
·
|
|
initiation of investigations by regulators;
|
|
|
·
|
|
costs to defend the related litigation;
|
|
|
·
|
|
a diversion of management’s time and our resources;
|
|
|
·
|
|
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
|
|
|
·
|
|
decreased demand for our peptide-based product candidates;
|
|
|
·
|
|
product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
|
|
|
·
|
|
loss of revenue from product sales; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
the inability to commercialize any our peptide-based product candidates, if approved.
|
Our inability to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the development or commercialization of our peptide-based product candidates. We currently carry clinical trial liability insurance for our clinical trials. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.
Our headquarters and certain of our data storage facilities are located near known earthquake fault zones. The occurrence of an earthquake, fire or any other catastrophic event could disrupt our operations or the operations of third parties who provide vital support functions to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
We and some of the third party service providers on which we depend for various support functions, such as data storage, are vulnerable to damage from catastrophic events, such as power loss, natural disasters, terrorism and similar unforeseen events beyond our control. Our corporate headquarters and other facilities are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, which in the past has experienced severe earthquakes and fires. We do not carry earthquake insurance. Earthquakes or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.
If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, damaged critical infrastructure, such as our data storage facilities or financial systems, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. We do not have a disaster recovery and business continuity plan in place. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the absence or limited nature of our internal or third party service provider disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, integral parties in our supply chain are operating from single sites, increasing their vulnerability to natural disasters or other sudden, unforeseen and severe adverse events. If such an event were to affect our supply chain, it could have a material adverse effect on our development plans and business.
The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for our peptide-based product candidates could limit our ability to generate revenue.
The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford medications and therapies. Sales of any of our peptide-based product candidates that receive marketing approval will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of our peptide-based product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain adequate pricing that will allow us to realize a sufficient return on our investment.
There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”). CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree, but also have their own methods and approval process. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement for novel products such as ours since there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products.
Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries may cause us to price our product candidates on less favorable terms than we currently anticipate. In many countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our peptide-based product candidates to other available therapies. In general, the prices of products under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our peptide-based product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.
Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors, in the United States and internationally, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products into the healthcare market.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
If we are unable to obtain or protect intellectual property rights related to our product candidates and technologies, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.
We rely upon a combination of patent protection, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our product candidates and technologies. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost, in a timely manner, or in all jurisdictions. The patent applications that we own or license may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or in other foreign countries, or they may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or technologies in the United States or in other foreign
countries. There is no assurance that all the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patent and patent applications has been found, which can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents have been issued, or do successfully issue, from our patent applications, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patent and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates and technologies, or prevent others from designing around our claims.
If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent and patent applications we hold, obtain or pursue with respect to our product candidates and technologies is challenged, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our product candidates and technologies, it could threaten our ability to commercialize our product candidates and technologies. Several patent applications covering our product candidates and technologies have been filed. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patent, or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. Any successful opposition or other challenge to these patents or any other patents owned by or, if applicable in the future, licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates and technologies that we may develop. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates and technologies.
In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available however the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from generic medications. For example, our granted U.S. patents covering PN-943 and PTG-200 expire in 2035, and our granted U.S. patent covering PTG-300 expires in 2034. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States the life of a patent can be increased based on certain delays caused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”), this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials or in gaining regulatory approval, the period of time during which we could market any of our product candidates under patent protection, if approved, would be reduced.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on all of our product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patent and other intellectual property rights, especially those relating to life sciences. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights, including trade secrets, to the same extent as federal and state laws of the United States. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws.
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 in the United States. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing. Also, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. If, in the future, we obtain licenses from third parties, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications or to maintain any patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our
business. Moreover, if we do obtain necessary licenses, we will likely have obligations under those licenses, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the license. Termination of a necessary license could have a material adverse impact on our business.
While we hold issued patents and have filed patent applications to protect certain aspects of our product candidates, we also rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary scientific, business and technical information and know-how that is not or may not be patentable or that we elect not to patent. For example, we primarily rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our peptide therapeutics technology platform. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets and proprietary know-how or if competitors independently develop viable competing products, our business and competitive position may be harmed.
We seek to protect our proprietary information, data and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and partners. Although these agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and endeavor to execute confidentiality agreements with all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how and other confidential information related to such technology, we cannot be certain that we have executed such agreements with all third parties who may have helped to develop our intellectual property or who had access to our proprietary information, nor can be we certain that our agreements will not be breached. If any of the parties to these confidentiality agreements breaches or violates the terms of such agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation, and we could lose our trade secrets as a result.
We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets and know-how by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets.
Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets, like patent litigation, is expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. We cannot guarantee that our employees, former employees or consultants will not file patent applications claiming our inventions. Because of the “first-to-file” laws in the United States, such unauthorized patent application filings may defeat our attempts to obtain patents on our own inventions.
Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect as trade secrets and know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles, and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. If we are unable to prevent material disclosure of the intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Even if we are able to adequately protect our trade secrets and proprietary information, our trade secrets could otherwise become known or could be independently discovered by our competitors. Competitors could purchase our products and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own
competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, in the absence of patent protection, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If our trade secrets are not adequately protected so as to protect our market against competitors’ products, others may be able to exploit our proprietary peptide product candidate discovery technologies to identify and develop competing product candidates, and thus our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe our issued patents or any patents issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party in such infringement proceeding from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly, and could put any of our patent applications at risk of not yielding an issued patent.
Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us, the PTO or any foreign patent authority may be necessary to determine the priority or ownership of inventions with respect to our patent or patent applications. Our defense of litigation, interference or derivation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms, if any license is offered at all.
Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third party is infringing our issued patents, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our stockholders. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution.
We may not be able to prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property, trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.
Any issued patents covering our product candidates, including any patent that may issue as a result of our pending or future patent applications, could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court in the United States or abroad.
If we initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our product candidates or technologies, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent 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 or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the PTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition or derivation proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our product candidates or technologies. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is
unpredictable. With respect to the validity of our patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we, our patent counsel, and the patent examiner were unaware of during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.
As more groups become engaged in scientific research and product development in fields related to our product candidates, such as IL-23R, the risk of our patents, or patents that we have in-licensed, being challenged through patent interferences, derivation proceedings, oppositions, re-examinations, litigation or other means will likely increase. An adverse outcome in a patent dispute could have a material adverse effect on our business by:
|
|
·
|
|
causing us to lose patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction(s);
|
|
|
·
|
|
subjecting us to litigation, or otherwise preventing Janssen or us from commercializing PTG-200 or other product candidates in the relevant jurisdiction(s);
|
|
|
·
|
|
requiring Janssen or us to obtain licenses to the disputed patents;
|
|
|
·
|
|
forcing Janssen or us to cease using the disputed technology; or
|
|
|
·
|
|
requiring Janssen or us to develop or obtain alternative technologies.
|
An adverse outcome in a patent dispute could severely harm our collaboration with Janssen or cause Janssen to terminate the Janssen License and Collaboration Agreement.
Intellectual property disputes could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities. Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, are unpredictable and generally expensive and time-consuming and, even if resolved in our favor, are likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting 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 market price of our common stock. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.
Competitors could enter the market with generic versions of our product candidates, which may result in a material decline in sales of our product candidates.
Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may file an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”), seeking approval of a generic copy of an approved innovator product. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a manufacturer may also submit an NDA under section 505(b)(2) that references the FDA’s finding of safety and effectiveness of a previously approved drug. A 505(b)(2) NDA product may be for a new or improved version of the original innovator product. Innovative small molecule drugs may be eligible for certain periods of regulatory exclusivity (e.g., five years for new chemical entities, three years for changes to an approved drug requiring a new clinical study, seven years for orphan drugs), which preclude FDA approval (or in some circumstances, FDA filing and review of) an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA relying on the FDA’s finding of safety and effectiveness for the innovative drug. In addition to the benefits of regulatory exclusivity, an innovator NDA holder may have patents claiming the active ingredient, product formulation or an approved use of the drug, which would be listed with the product in the FDA publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” known as the “Orange Book.” If there are patents listed in the Orange Book, a generic applicant that seeks to market its product before expiration of the patents must
include in the ANDA or 505(b)(2) what is known as a “Paragraph IV certification,” challenging the validity or enforceability of, or claiming non-infringement of, the listed patent or patents. Notice of the certification must be given to the innovator, too, and if within 45 days of receiving notice the innovator sues to protect its patents, approval of the ANDA is stayed for 30 months, or as lengthened or shortened by the court.
Accordingly, if our product candidates are approved, competitors could file ANDAs for generic versions of our product candidates, or 505(b)(2) NDAs that reference our product candidates. If there are patents listed for our product candidates in the Orange Book, those ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDAs would be required to include a certification as to each listed patent indicating whether the ANDA applicant does or does not intend to challenge the patent. We cannot predict whether any patents issuing from our pending patent applications will be eligible for listing in the Orange Book, how any generic competitor would address such patents, whether we would sue on any such patents, or the outcome of any such suit.
We may not be successful in securing or maintaining proprietary patent protection for products and technologies we develop or license. Moreover, if any patents that are granted and listed in the Orange Book are successfully challenged by way of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent litigation, the affected product could more immediately face generic competition and its sales would likely decline materially. Should sales decline, we may have to write off a portion or all of the intangible assets associated with the affected product and our results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
Third party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our drug discovery and development efforts.
Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our drug candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing or otherwise violating the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, derivation proceedings, post grant reviews, inter partes reviews, and reexamination proceedings before the PTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates, and there may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates and technologies. Third parties, including our competitors, may initiate legal proceedings against us alleging that we are infringing or otherwise violating their patent or other intellectual property rights. Given the vast number of patents in our field of technology, we cannot assure you that marketing of our product candidates or practice of our technologies will not infringe existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future. Because patent applications can take many years to issue and may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing, and because pending patent claims can be revised before issuance, there may be applications now pending of which we are unaware that may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by the practice of our peptide therapeutics technology platform or the manufacture, use or sale of our product candidates. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that our product candidates or technologies infringe upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our product candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product or formulation itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire. As our industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates or technologies may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others.
Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further practice our technologies or develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. Even if we are successful in defending against any infringement claims, litigation is expensive and time-consuming and is likely to divert management’s attention and substantial resources from our core business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, limit our uses, pay royalties or redesign our infringing product candidates, which may be impossible or require substantial
time and monetary expenditure. We may choose to seek, or may be required to seek, a license from the third-party patent holder and would most likely be required to pay license fees or royalties or both, each of which could be substantial. These licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, however, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights we obtain may be nonexclusive, which would provide our competitors access to the same intellectual property rights upon which we are forced to rely. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In such an event, we would be unable to further practice our technologies or develop and commercialize any of our product candidates at issue, which could harm our business significantly.
We may not identify relevant third party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third party patent which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products.
We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.
The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.
We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to protect our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses. We may find that our programs require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties or the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license compositions, methods of use, processes or other third party intellectual property rights from third parties we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. 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. Even if we are able to obtain a license to intellectual property of interest, we may not be able to secure exclusive rights, in which case others could use the same rights and compete with us.
If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of that program and our business and financial condition could suffer.
Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.
The PTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the PTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals and rely on such third parties to help us comply with these requirements and effect payment of these fees with respect to the patent and patent applications that we own, and if we in-license intellectual property we may have to rely upon our licensors to comply with these
requirements and effect payment of these fees with respect to any patents and patent applications that we license. 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. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.
Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.
On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“Leahy-Smith Act”) was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The PTO has developed regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, but many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, did not become effective until March 2013, 18 months after its enactment. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the PTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.
Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.
The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:
|
|
·
|
|
others may be able to make compounds that are similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of our issued patents or any pending patent applications we may have;
|
|
|
·
|
|
we might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patents or pending patent applications that we own or co-own;
|
|
|
·
|
|
we might not have been the first to file patent applications covering an invention;
|
|
|
·
|
|
others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;
|
|
|
·
|
|
pending patent applications that we own or co-own may not lead to issued patents;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the issued patents that we own or any issued patents that we license may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, 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 or in-license additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.
|
Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.
We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of former or other employers.
Many of our employees and consultants, including our senior management and our scientific founders, have been employed or retained at universities or by other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including potential competitors. Some of our employees and consultants, including each member of our senior management and each of our scientific founders, executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment or retention. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees, consultants or independent contractors have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s or consultant’s former or other employer. We are not aware of any threatened or pending claims related to these matters or concerning the agreements with our senior management or scientific founders, but in the future litigation may be necessary to defend against such 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.
We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our issued patents, any patents issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications and other intellectual property.
We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our issued patents, any patents issued as a result of our pending or future applications or other intellectual property. While we believe we have all rights to any intellectual property related to our product candidates, a third party-contractor may claim they have ownership rights. We have had in the past, and we may also have in the future, ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates and technologies. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership.
Some of our intellectual property was generated through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.
Some of our intellectual property rights were generated through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act, and implementing regulations. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us or our licensors to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. These time limits have recently been changed by regulation and may change in the future. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference
requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.
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 expect to rely on third parties in the development and manufacture of our product candidates, 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, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third-party collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.
We have not yet registered trademarks for a commercial trade name for our product candidates and failure to secure such registrations could adversely affect our business.
We have not yet registered trademarks for a commercial trade name for our product candidates. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the PTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. Moreover, any name we propose to use with our product candidates in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.
Risks Related to Ownership of our Common Stock
The price of our stock may be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.
Our stock price has fluctuated in the past and is likely to be volatile in the future. The stock market in general and the market for biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, investors may experience losses on their investment in our common stock. In addition to the factors discussed in these “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, these factors include, but are not limited to:
|
|
·
|
|
the success of competitive products or technologies;
|
|
|
·
|
|
regulatory actions with respect to our product candidates or our competitors’ products and product candidates;
|
|
|
·
|
|
actual or anticipated results in our clinical trials or those of our competitors;
|
|
|
·
|
|
regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other countries;
|
|
|
·
|
|
disputes or developments concerning patent applications or other proprietary rights;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the level of expenses related to any of our product candidates or clinical development programs;
|
|
|
·
|
|
adverse regulatory decisions;
|
|
|
·
|
|
our dependence on third parties, including CROs as well as manufacturers;
|
|
|
·
|
|
our failure to successfully commercialize any of our peptide-based product candidates, if approved;
|
|
|
·
|
|
additions or departures of key scientific or management personnel;
|
|
|
·
|
|
variations in our financial results or those of companies that are perceived to be similar to us;
|
|
|
·
|
|
actual or anticipated variations in quarterly operating results;
|
|
|
·
|
|
announcement or expectation of additional financing efforts;
|
|
|
·
|
|
sales of our common stock by us or our stockholders in the future;
|
|
|
·
|
|
the trading volume of our common stock;
|
|
|
·
|
|
actual or anticipated changes in estimates as to financial results, timelines or recommendations by analysts;
|
|
|
·
|
|
changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;
|
|
|
·
|
|
conditions or trends in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
general political and economic conditions.
|
Volatility in our share price could subject us to securities class action litigation.
Securities class action litigations have often been brought against companies following a decline in the market price of their securities. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.
Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.
Our executive officers, directors and current beneficial owners of 5% or more of our common stock, in the aggregate, beneficially own a significant percentage of our outstanding common stock. These persons, acting together, will be able to significantly influence all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election and removal of directors and any merger or other significant corporate transactions. The interests of this group of stockholders may not coincide with the interests of other stockholders.
Future sales of our common stock may depress our share price.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. At December 31, 2019, we had a total of 27,217,649 shares of common stock outstanding, notwithstanding any potential exercises of outstanding options and issuance of shares under the employee stock purchase plan.
If additional shares of common stock are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the trading price of our common stock could decline.
Any sales of securities by our stockholders could have an adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock. In addition, in the future we may issue common stock or other securities, including sales of common stock pursuant to our Sales Agreement. The number of shares of our new common stock issued in connection with raising additional capital could constitute a material portion of our then outstanding common stock.
We are an “emerging growth company” and as a result of the reduced disclosure and governance requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, our common stock may be less attractive to investors.
We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act and for as long as we continue to be an “emerging growth company,” we intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies but not to “emerging growth companies,” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We will remain an emerging growth company, and thus may continue to rely on these exemptions, until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of the IPO, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result of our choices to reduce disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock, and our stock price may be more volatile.
We are obligated to develop and maintain proper and effective internal controls over financial reporting and any failure to maintain the adequacy of these internal controls may adversely affect investor confidence in our company and, as a result, the value of our common stock.
We are required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 404), to furnish a report by management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. This assessment needs to include disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. Our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting until our first Annual Report required to be filed with the SEC following the date we are no longer an “emerging growth company”. At such time as we are required to obtain auditor attestation, if we then have a
material weakness, we would receive an adverse opinion regarding our internal control over financial reporting from our independent registered accounting firm.
Our compliance with Section 404 requires that we incur substantial accounting expense and expend significant management efforts. We currently do not have an internal audit group, and we will need to hire additional accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company experience and technical accounting knowledge and continue the costly and challenging process of compiling the system and processing documentation necessary to perform the evaluation needed to comply with Section 404. We may not complete our continued evaluation, testing and any required remediation in a timely fashion.
During our evaluation of our internal control, if we identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting or fail to remediate any material weaknesses, we will be unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective. We cannot assure you that there will not be material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting in the future. Any failure to maintain internal control over financial reporting could severely inhibit our ability to accurately report our financial condition or results of operations. If we are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm determines we have a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of our ordinary shares could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by Nasdaq, the SEC or other regulatory authorities. Failure to remedy any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, or to implement or maintain other effective control systems required of public companies, could also restrict our future access to the capital markets.
Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.
Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met.
These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
During the course of our review and testing, we may identify deficiencies and be unable to remediate them before we must provide the required reports. Furthermore, we may not detect errors on a timely basis and our financial statements may be materially misstated. We or our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting, which could harm our operating results, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information and cause the trading price of our stock to fall. In addition, as a public company we are required to file accurate and timely Quarterly and Annual Reports with the SEC under the Exchange Act. Any failure to report our financial results on an accurate and timely basis could result in sanctions, lawsuits, delisting of our shares from The Nasdaq Global Market or other adverse consequences that would materially harm our business.
Any changes to existing accounting pronouncements or taxation rules or practices may cause adverse fluctuations in our reported results of operations or affect how we conduct our business.
A change in accounting pronouncements or taxation rules or practices can have a significant effect on our reported results and may affect our reporting of transactions completed before the change is effective. New accounting pronouncements, taxation rules and varying interpretations of accounting pronouncements or taxation rules have occurred in the past and may occur in the future. The change to existing rules, future changes, if any, or the need for us
to modify a current tax or accounting position may adversely affect our reported financial results or the way we conduct our business.
Nasdaq may delist our securities from its exchange, which could limit investors’ ability to make transactions in our securities and subject us to additional trading restrictions.
Our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq Global Market. We cannot assure you that, in the future, our securities will meet the continued listing requirements to be listed on The Nasdaq Global Market. If The Nasdaq Global Market delists our common stock, we could face significant material adverse consequences, including:
|
|
·
|
|
a limited availability of market quotations for our securities;
|
|
|
·
|
|
a determination that our common stock is a “penny stock” which will require brokers trading in our common stock to adhere to more stringent rules and possibly resulting in a reduced level of trading activity in the secondary trading market for our common stock;
|
|
|
·
|
|
a limited amount of news and analyst coverage for our company; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
a decreased ability to issue additional securities or obtain additional financing in the future.
|
If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. In the event one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price could be adversely affected. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, and we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.
Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, would be your sole source of gain.
We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock would be your sole source of gain on an investment in our common stock for the foreseeable future.
Provisions in our corporate charter documents could make an acquisition of us more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.
Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions could in turn affect any attempt by our stockholders to replace current members of our management team.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty; any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our bylaws; or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. The choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.
Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law may prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to change our management or hinder efforts to acquire a controlling interest in us, and the market price of our common stock may be lower as a result.
There are provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws that may make it difficult for a third party to acquire, or attempt to acquire, control of our company, even if a change in control was considered favorable by our stockholders. Our charter documents also contain other provisions that could have an anti-takeover effect, such as:
|
|
·
|
|
our board of directors has the right to elect directors to fill a vacancy created by the expansion of the board of directors or the resignation, death or removal of a director;
|
|
|
·
|
|
our stockholders may not act by written consent or call special stockholders’ meetings;
|
|
|
·
|
|
our certificate of incorporation does not provide for cumulative voting in the election of directors;
|
|
|
·
|
|
stockholders must provide advance notice and additional disclosures in order to nominate individuals for election to the board of directors or to propose matters that can be acted upon at a stockholders’ meeting; and
|
|
|
·
|
|
our board of directors may issue, without stockholder approval, shares of undesignated preferred stock.
|
Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibit a person who owns 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. Any provision in our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.
The recently passed comprehensive tax reform bill could adversely affect our business and financial condition.
In December 2017, the Tax Act was enacted which significantly changes the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (the “Code”). The Tax Act, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including reduction of the corporate tax rates; limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense for net operating losses generated after 2017; limitation of the deduction to 80% of current year taxable income; indefinite carryforward of net operating losses and elimination of net operating loss carrybacks; changes in the treatment of offshore earnings regardless of whether they are repatriated; mandatory capitalization of research and development expenses beginning in 2022; immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time; further deduction limits on executive compensation; and modifying, repealing and creating many other business deductions and credits, including the reduction in the orphan drug credit from 50% to 25% of qualifying expenditures. We continue to examine the impact this tax reform legislation may have on our business. Notwithstanding the reduction in the corporate income tax rate, the overall impact of the Tax Act is uncertain and our business and financial condition could be adversely affected. The impact of this tax reform on holders of our common stock is also uncertain and could be adverse. This Annual Report does not discuss any such tax legislation or the manner in which it might affect us or our stockholders in the future. We urge our stockholders to consult with their legal and tax advisors with respect to such legislation.
Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.
We have incurred substantial losses during our history. We do not anticipate generating revenue from sales of products for the foreseeable future, if ever, and we may never achieve profitability. To the extent that we continue to generate taxable losses, unused losses will carry forward to offset future taxable income, if any, until such unused losses expire. Under Section 382 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage points change (by value) in its equity ownership over a rolling three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. We may experience ownership changes in the future or subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, some of which are outside our control. As of December 31, 2019, we had federal net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $164.1 million that could be limited if we have experienced, or if in the future we experience, an ownership change, which could have an adverse effect on our future results of operations.
We may have additional tax liabilities.
Our effective income tax rate in the future could be adversely affected by a number of factors, including: interpretations of existing tax laws, changes in tax laws and rates, future levels of research and development expenditures, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, our ability to use some or all of our accumulated net operating losses, changes in accounting standards and other items. The impact of our income tax provision resulting from these items may be significant and could have a negative impact on our net operating results. We are also subject to non-income based taxes, such as payroll, sales, use, property, and goods and services taxes in the United States. We may have additional exposure to non-income based tax liabilities.
We are regularly subject to audits by tax authorities in the jurisdictions in which we conduct business. Although we believe our tax positions are reasonable, the final outcome of tax audits and related litigation could be materially different than that reflected in our historical income tax provisions and accruals, and we could be subject to assessments of additional taxes and/or substantial fines or penalties. The resolution of any audits or litigation could have an adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. We and our subsidiary are engaged in intercompany transactions, the terms and conditions of which may be scrutinized by tax authorities, which could result in additional tax and/or penalties becoming due.
Item 1B.Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2.Properties
We lease approximately 42,877 square feet of office and laboratory space in Newark, California under a lease agreement that expires in May 2024. We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our business needs for at least the next 12 months and that additional space will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if required.
Item 3.Legal Proceedings
We may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.
Item 4.Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.