10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025

Commission File Number 001-41583

Coya Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (800) 587-8170

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

Title of each class TradingSymbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share COYA The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐

Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☒

Emerging growth company ☒

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market on June 30, 2025, was approximately $89,422,016.

The number of shares of Registrant’s common stock outstanding as of March 12, 2026 was 23,457,183.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.

Table of Contents

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 1

Item 1A. Risk Factors 36

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 74

Item 1C. Cybersecurity 74

Item 2. Properties 74

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 74

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 74

PART II

Item 6. [Reserved] 75

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 87

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 87

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 87

Item 9B. Other Information 88

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 88

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 89

Item 11. Executive Compensation 96

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 106

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 108

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Some of the statements made under the headings “Summary,” “Business,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K contain forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, beliefs, expectations and current views with respect to, among other things, future events and financial performance.

Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts and are often characterized by the use of words such as “believe,” “can,” “could,” “potential,” “plan,” “predict,” “goals,” “seek,” “should,” “may,” “may have,” “would,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect” or by discussions of strategy, plans or intentions. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors that could cause our actual results, performance or achievements, or industry results, to differ materially from historical results or any future results, performance or achievements expressed, suggested or implied by such forward-looking statements. These include, but are not limited to, statements about:

•

our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates;

•

the timing of future investigational new drug (“IND”) submissions, initiation of preclinical studies and clinical trials, and timing of expected clinical results for our product candidates;

•

our success in early preclinical studies, which may not be indicative of results obtained in later studies or clinical trials;

•

the outbreak of public health emergencies, epidemics, pandemics, which could adversely impact our business, including our preclinical studies and any future clinical trials;

•

the potential benefits of our product candidates;

•

our ability to identify patients with the diseases treated by our product candidates, and to enroll patients in clinical trials;

•

the success of our efforts to expand our pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable products through the use of our potential therapeutic modalities;

•

our expectations regarding collaborations and other agreements with third parties and their potential benefits;

•

our ability to obtain, maintain and protect our intellectual property;

•

our reliance upon intellectual property licensed from third parties;

•

impacts of increased trade tariffs, import quotas or other trade restrictions or measures taken by the United States and other countries, including the recent and potential changes in U.S. trade policies that may be made by the Trump presidential administration;

•

our ability to identify, recruit and retain key personnel;

•

our financial performance;

•

developments or projections relating to our competitors or our industry;

•

the impact of laws and regulations;

•

our expectations regarding the time during which we will be an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act; and

•

other factors and assumptions described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and “Our Business”, and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

These statements are based on our historical performance and on our current plans, estimates and projections in light of information currently available to us, and therefore you should not place undue reliance on them. The inclusion of this forward-looking information should not be regarded as a representation by us, the underwriters or any other person that the future plans, estimates or expectations contemplated by us will be achieved. Forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and we undertake no obligation to update them in light of new information or future events, except as required by law.

You should carefully consider the above factors, as well as the factors discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including under “Risk Factors,” before deciding to invest in our securities. The factors identified above should not be construed as an exhaustive list of factors that could affect our future results and should be read in conjunction with the other cautionary statements that are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Furthermore, new risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and it is impossible for us to predict those events or how they may affect us. If any of these trends, risks or uncertainties actually occurs or continues, our business, revenue and financial results could be harmed, the trading prices of our securities could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. All forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement.

PART I

ITEM 1.BUSINESS

All references in this report to "Coya," the "Company," "we," "us," or "our" mean Coya Therapeutics, Inc. unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise indicates.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing proprietary new therapies to enhance the function of regulatory T cells (“Tregs”). Tregs are a subpopulation of T-lymphocytes consisting of CD4+CD25high hFOXP3+ cells that suppress inflammatory responses. Tregs were first discovered in 1995 by Dr. Shimon Sakaguchi and since their discovery multiple lines of research have contributed to elucidate Treg biology and its role in health and disease. Dr. Sakaguchi was the 2025 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Tregs and their transcription factors have been shown to be essential to maintaining cellular homeostasis by regulating autoimmune and inflammatory responses and maintaining self-tolerance in mammals. Dysfunctional Tregs underlie numerous disease states, and this cellular dysfunction is driven by the chronic inflammatory environment and high levels of oxidative stress commonly observed in certain diseases. Further, the degree of Treg dysfunction is correlated with the severity and progression of serious and life-threatening conditions. These and other recent advances in the understanding of Treg biology, have made this subset of T-lymphocytes an important potential therapeutic target, which we believe may provide new treatments for serious diseases.

Our core focus is developing therapies to target Treg dysfunction. Treg dysfunction has been identified as an important pathophysiological component of neurodegenerative, autoimmune, and metabolic diseases, all areas where we believe new and effective therapies are urgently needed. We believe we have expertise in three distinct potential therapeutic modalities: Treg-enhancing biologics, Treg-derived exosomes, and autologous Treg cell therapy. Our expertise includes both ex vivo and in vivo approaches intended to restore the suppressive and immunomodulatory functions of Tregs.

Our lead asset, COYA 302, is a Treg-enhancing biologic, which was developed from key learnings established in our early work and discoveries with our autologous Treg cell therapy asset. Our autologous Treg cell therapy program has completed a Phase 1 and Phase 2a studies in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. The clinical data from these initial studies served as important confirmation of the underlying immunomodulatory properties of Tregs and their potential therapeutic benefits. These studies have also significantly expanded our own foundational knowledge of the biological activity of Tregs and key biomarkers of disease progression and drug effect, which we believe will be critical for the design of our future clinical and preclinical studies, the selection of future targeted diseases and the overall advancement of our development pipeline. We believe our findings have also established mechanistic benefits of combination biologics to address Treg dysfunction as well as highlighted important advantages of scalability and cost.

COYA 302 is the combination of our proprietary low dose interleukin-2 (COYA 301, or LD IL-2) and the immunomodulatory drug CTLA4-Ig, and we believe this combination has the potential to provide a sustained and durable effect on our first series of indications (neurodegenerative disorders) through targeting of multiple pathways. Our research and clinical efforts have led us to believe that combination biologics using our LD IL-2 as a backbone modality could be an effective way to treat neurodegenerative conditions that are inherently driven by a complexity of pathways. We believe COYA 302 is the most clinically advanced of what we hope will be a family of combination therapies that all feature our LD IL-2. Given the growing list of indications for which we are developing it, we can now refer to COYA 302 as a “Pipeline in a Product.”

Coya is currently conducting the ALSTARS Trial, a Phase 2, randomized, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of COYA 302 for the treatment of ALS (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 07161999). (Please see Development Status of COYA 302 below.)

Our operations are focused on developing our clinical and preclinical product candidates and we have devoted substantially all of our resources to developing product and technology rights, conducting research and development (which includes preclinical and non-clinical studies of our product candidates), organizing and staffing our company, ongoing business operations and raising capital. We have funded our operations primarily through the private and public sale of our securities. Our net losses were $21.2 million and $14.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2025, and 2024, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $62.0 million. Our primary use of cash is to fund operating expenses, which consist primarily of research and development expenditures and general and administrative expenditures. Our ability to generate product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more of our current or future product candidates.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future as we advance our product candidates through all stages of development and clinical trials and, ultimately, seek regulatory approval. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product

manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution. We expect our expenses and capital requirements will increase significantly in connection with our ongoing activities as we:

•

continue our ongoing and planned research and development of our product candidates;

•

initiate nonclinical studies and clinical trials for any additional product candidates that we may pursue;

•

continue to scale up external manufacturing capacity with the aim of securing sufficient quantities to meet our capacity requirements for clinical trials and potential commercialization;

•

establish a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure to commercialize any approved product candidates and related additional commercial manufacturing costs;

•

develop, maintain, expand, protect and enforce our intellectual property portfolio, including patents, trade secrets and know-how;

•

acquire or in-license other product candidates and technologies;

•

add clinical, operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our product development and planned future commercialization efforts; and

•

incur legal, accounting, investor relations and other expenses associated with operating as a public company.

Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year, depending on the timing of our clinical trials and our expenditures on other research and development activities.

We will need to raise substantial additional capital to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we plan to finance our operations through the sale of equity, debt financings or other capital sources, which may include collaborations with other companies or other strategic transactions. There are no assurances that we will be successful in obtaining an adequate level of financing as and when needed to finance our operations on terms acceptable to us or at all. Any failure to raise capital as and when needed could have a negative impact on our financial condition and on our ability to pursue our business plans and strategies. If we are unable to secure adequate additional funding, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development and commercialization of one or more product candidates or delay our pursuit of potential in-licenses or acquisitions. The financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been prepared on a going-concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business and do not include any adjustments related to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or the amounts and classification of liabilities that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Recent Developments

COYA 302, ALS

In August of 2025, we announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA" or the "Agency") accepted our Investigational New Drug ("IND") application for COYA 302. Subsequently, in December of 2025, we announced that dosing of ALS patients in the Company’s ALSTARS Trial of COYA 302, a Phase 2, randomized, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of COYA 302 for the treatment of ALS (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 07161999), had commenced. We anticipate completing enrollment in the ALLSTARS trial in second half of 2026.

In January of 2026, we completed a financing with $11.1 million in gross proceeds, $10 million of which was provided by Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. ("Dr. Reddy's"), a subsidiary of our strategic collaborator on COYA 302 for ALS. In consultation with Dr. Reddy's we intend to use the net proceeds to accelerate tech transfer and scale-up manufacturing activities for low dose IL-2 to support the commercial readiness of COYA 302 for ALS. While these new initiatives accelerate commercial readiness for COYA 302 for ALS, they are not expected to impact our current cash runway which remains into the second half of 2027. (Please see “Development Status of COYA 302, ALS” below.)

COYA 302, FTD

Our preclinical, regulatory, and clinical work with COYA 302 in patients with ALS is also informing our development planning for COYA 302 in patients with FTD. In January 2026, we announced that the FDA accepted our IND for COYA 302 for the treatment of frontotemporal dementia ("FTD"). We expect to advance COYA 302 for FTD in a clinical trial.

In April of 2025, we announced positive interim results from four patients in an investigator-initiated proof of concept open-label study with low-dose IL-2 and CTLA4-Ig combination treatment in patients with Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD). In September of 2025, we announced that an additional 5 patients had been enrolled in this study bringing the total number of patients enrolled to 9. In January of 2026 we announced complete results form this study. The study was led by Dr. Alireza Faridar and Dr. Stanley Appel at the Houston Methodist Neurological Institute (Houston, TX) with funding from The Peggy and Gary Edwards Endowment Fund. Study patients received subcutaneously administered CTLA4-Ig, along with a 5-day course of low-dose IL-2 every four weeks, for a total of 22 weeks of dosing and follow-up. The study enrolled 9 patients, The primary endpoints were the incidence and severity of adverse events. No serious adverse events were observed during the study. Study data further demonstrated enhanced Treg numbers and function and cognitive function stability as measured by CDR-FTLD and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). (Please see “Development Status of COYA 302, FTD” below.)

COYA 303

In January of 2025 we announced expansion of our investigational pipeline with a new product candidate called COYA 303 for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. Sustained inflammatory responses driven by dysfunctional immune regulation is a hallmark of serious autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases. COYA 303 is an investigational biologic combination of COYA 301(LD IL-2) and a glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) designed for subcutaneous administration. In April of 2025 we announced the publication of results from a preclinical study of COYA 303 in an in vitro human immune cell model, wherein COYA 303 exhibited a dual immunomodulatory mechanism of action resulting in an additive/synergistic anti-inflammatory effect. We believe this was due to increased Treg function and suppressed pro-inflammatory myeloid cells and responder T cells. In September of 2025, we announced results of a study designed to evaluate the effects of COYA 303 in an established in vivo lipopolysaccharide (LPS) mouse model of systemic and neuroinflammation. Results from the first animal cohort treated with COYA 303 demonstrated broad systemic and central immunomodulatory activity, including significant reductions in LPS-induced pro-inflammatory myeloid cells and associated cytokines, increases in anti-inflammatory immune cell subsets, and attenuation of neuroinflammation in the brain, compared to untreated animals. Additional results from this study were announced in November of 2025. (Please see “Development Status of COYA 303” below.) We intend to pursue partnerships and grants to potentially advance the COYA 303 program.

Our Pipeline

The core of our approach and strategy is to leverage our Treg-modifying potential therapeutic modalities to advance the standard of care for neurodegenerative and autoimmune diseases. Building on our initial findings from our autologous Treg cell therapy modality, our goal is to offer patients therapies that improve outcomes of neurodegenerative, autoimmune, and metabolic diseases.

Below we show our pipeline.

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to discover, develop, manufacture, and commercialize proprietary medicinal products that enhance the function of Tregs. We intend for our product candidates to address unmet medical needs, principally in neurodegenerative, autoimmune, and

metabolic diseases. We believe we can differentiate ourselves from other Treg companies by combining our understanding of Treg cell biology and the diseases where Treg cellular dysfunction is considered a likely driver of pathology with our three distinct potential therapeutic modalities: (i) Treg-enhancing biologics, (ii) Treg-derived exosomes, and (iii) autologous Treg cell therapy. Key elements of the Company’s strategy include:

Advance the development of COYA 302 (A Pipeline within a Product). Our principal strategic goal is to advance COYA 302 for ALS and COYA 302 for FTD through clinical studies. We intend to explore the utility of COYA 302 as a therapeutic for other neurodegenerative diseases including Parkinson’s Disease (“PD”), and Alzheimer’s Disease (“AD”), and perhaps, in time, autoimmune diseases.

Develop COYA 303 for AD and other neurodegenerative diseases. We intend to seek business development opportunities and/or grants to advance COYA 303 through IND enabling studies.

Establish COYA 301 as the backbone for combination therapies. Our goal is to utilize COYA 301, our low dose IL-2, as the backbone in combination with other appropriate mechanisms, including CTLA4-Ig (COYA 302), GLP-1 RA (COYA 303) and possibly GM-CSF, and other potential combinations to address various diseases.

Actively pursue partnering opportunities for COYA 301 and COYA 302. We expect to pursue business development opportunities which leverage COYA 301 as a backbone therapy in combination with other product candidates in neurodegenerative and autoimmune diseases. We may also explore licensing COYA 302 in those indications retained by COYA and for ALS in those geographies still retained by COYA.

Leverage in-licensed technology to advance exosomes as potential therapies. Continue to pursue scientific and preclinical validation of exosomes as a therapeutic modality in collaboration with Houston Methodist Hospital through our sponsored research agreement.

Regulatory T cells (Tregs)

In 1995, Shimon Sakaguchi, a member of our Scientific Advisory Board and the 2025 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, discovered a subpopulation of suppressor T cells that expressed CD4 and was named regulatory T cells (Tregs). CD4 is found on the surface of certain cells and plays a key role in maintaining homeostasis, a state of balance among all the body systems needed for the body to survive and function correctly, in the immune system. CD4+ T cells are commonly divided into two distinct lineages: Treg cells and conventional T helper (Th) cells (Pro-Inflammatory Cells).

Conventional Th cells are crucial in shaping the immune response, whether it is protection against a pathogen, a cytotoxic attack on tumor cells, or an unwanted response to self-antigens in the context of autoimmunity. Th cells control the adaptive immune system. The adaptive immune system includes the effectors cells of the cellular immune responses, the T lymphocytes, which mature in the thymus, and antibody-producing cells, the B lymphocytes, which arise in the bone marrow. Th cells control the adaptive immune system by activating, in an antigen-specific fashion, other effector cells such as CD8+ cytotoxic T cells (which are important for immune defense against intracellular pathogens), B cells (that are responsible for producing antibodies), and macrophages (white blood cells that stimulate the action of other immune system cells). By functioning in an antigen-specific fashion, the Th cell is capable of stimulating an immune response.

Tregs main function is the suppression and termination of pro-inflammatory immune responses. Tregs suppress both innate and adaptive immune reactions detrimental to the host, downregulate pro-inflammatory cytokines (a type of protein that is made by certain immune and non-immune cells and has an effect on the immune system) production, and can suppress the activation/expansion of CD4+CD25-effector T lymphocytes (Teffs). Immune homeostasis is reached when there is a balance between the number of functional Tregs and pro-inflammatory T cells. See the below figure for a visual representation:

Tregs are important anti-inflammatory immune cells involved in homeostasis. Tregs act on multiple immune cells to down-regulate the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

The Role of Tregs in Neurodegenerative, Autoimmune, and Metabolic Diseases

Dysfunctional Tregs underlie many diseases, and this cellular dysfunction is driven by the chronic inflammatory environment and high levels of oxidative stress commonly observed in numerous diseases. Additionally, the degree of Treg dysfunction is associated with the severity and progression of serious and life-threatening conditions, for which we believe new and effective therapies are urgently needed.

Since the discovery of Tregs in 1995, we have continued the development and research of Tregs by leveraging the scientific discoveries of Dr. Stanley Appel and his research team at Houston Methodist Hospital (“Methodist”) in Houston, Texas. We have entered into an exclusive Patent and Know How License Agreement with Methodist, and we continue to work with them in support of their research through an exclusive Sponsored Research Agreement.

Recent scientific evidence from Dr. Appel demonstrates that dysregulation of the immune system negatively impacts the severity and progression of neurodegenerative conditions. We believe Dr. Appel’s work demonstrates the role of Treg dysfunction in serious conditions such as ALS, AD, and FTD.

In particular, Dr. Appel discovered that Tregs are both reduced in numbers and function in these patients suffering from neurodegenerative diseases, and more marked reduction could be associated with more rapid disease progression. In addition, scientific evidence indicates an association between Treg dysfunction and the pathophysiology of certain autoimmune and metabolic conditions.

An increased ratio of pro-inflammatory T cells to functional Tregs leads to a disrupted immune homeostasis. See the below figures for a visual representation:

When Tregs become dysfunctional, a cytokine-mediated inflammatory state can arise leading to neurodegenerative, autoimmune, and metabolic diseases.

300 Series, Our Biologics Potential Therapeutic Modality

Our growing expertise and clinical experience decoding Treg biology and the critical role of Tregs in the pathophysiology of neurodegenerative, autoimmune, and metabolic diseases, provide the basis for the research and development of innovative biologics and biologic combinations intended to enhance Treg function in vivo for the treatment of diseases of high unmet medical need.

COYA 302

COYA 302, is a biologic combination for subcutaneous administration intended to enhance Treg function while depleting T effector function and activated macrophages. COYA 302 is a combination of COYA 301 (low-dose IL-2) and the fusion protein

CTL4-Ig. These two mechanisms may be additive or synergistic in suppressing inflammation. We believe the immunomodulatory fusion protein selectively inhibits the activation of pro-inflammatory effector T cells and macrophages, downregulating the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, while COYA 301 enhances and expands Tregs in vivo. The combination of these two approaches is intended to further shift the balance in favor of anti-inflammatory Tregs to pro-inflammatory cells in vivo. See the below figure for a visual representation:

COYA 302 in ALS, Clinical Progress

In August of 2025, we announced that the FDA accepted our IND application for a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled Phase 2 study of our first-in-class biologic combination COYA 302 in ALS patients. Subsequently, in December of 2025, we announced that we had commenced dosing of ALS patients in our ALSTARS Trial of COYA 302, a Phase 2, randomized, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of COYA 302 for the treatment of ALS (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 07161999).

An overview of our Phase 2 Study of COYA 302 in ALS is shown in the figure below.

Investigator Initiated Trial in ALS

In vitro assays conducted by Dr. Appel and his team at Houston Methodist Hospital (using commercially available products) showed that ex vivo expanded human Tregs exhibited greater suppression of T responder (“Tresp”) proliferation after exposure to the fusion protein component of COYA 302. In a separate assay, the addition of the fusion protein to ex vivo expanded human Tregs showed incremental suppression in the production of IL-6 by M1 proinflammatory macrophages.

Following the in vitro testing, a POC study in support of COYA 302 was conducted. This was an open label study conducted in 4 ALS patients, which evaluated the safety and tolerability, function of regulatory T-cells, biomarkers, and preliminary efficacy (as measured by the ALSFRS-R scale) utilizing as the treatment commercially available IL-2 and abatacept. Study data showed no decline or minimal decline at 24 and 48 weeks respectively after initiation of treatment and appeared to be well tolerated in all study patients as no serious adverse events were reported. Twenty-four weeks is an important timepoint as this is the period that ALS studies are usually benchmarked to measure differences in the ALSFRS-R scale for a treatment versus placebo. Based on this POC data, we designed a well-powered and well-controlled study to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of COYA 302 (COYA 301 or low dose IL-2, plus an abatacept proposed biosimilar, licensed from Dr. Reddy's Laboratories ("DRL"), or DRL_AB) in patients with ALS and initiated a Phase 2 trial (ALSTARS) in December of 2025 after the acceptance of our IND application by the FDA.

The results of this POC study in four patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) were presented by Dr. Appel on March 21, 2023, at a Company webcast and at the 2023 Muscle Dystrophy Association (MDA) Clinical & Scientific Conference in Dallas, Texas. Study assessments included functional status, as measured by the Revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R), regulatory T cell (Treg) suppressive function and numbers, serum biomarkers, and safety and tolerability. Study patients were treated with COYA 302 for 48 weeks (treatment phase) and were followed for additional 8 weeks after completion of the treatment phase (follow-up period). The ALSFRS-R scoring range is 0 to 48, with higher scores representing a better functional status.

Study data showed no decline or minimal decline at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, after initiation of treatment in this group of patients that were experiencing a mean decline of -1.1 points/month in their ALSFRS-R score prior to initiation of treatment with COYA 302. The mean (±SD) ALSFRS-R scores at week 24 (33.75 ±3.3) and week 48 (32 ±7.8) after initiation of treatment were not statistically different compared to the ALSFRS-R score at baseline (33.5 ±5.9), indicating clinically meaningful amelioration in the progression of the disease.

POC Study COYA 302: ALS Progression Over 24 and 48 Weeks (a)

'(a) Thonhoff et al. A Phase 1 Proof-of-Concept Study Evaluating Safety, Tolerability, and Biological Marker Responses with combination therapy of CTLA4-Ig and Interleukin-2 in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Frontiers in Neurology, 2024. In press.

In addition, the POC Study showed enhanced Treg suppressive function at 24 weeks and 48 weeks. Treg suppressive function, expressed as percentage of inhibition of proinflammatory T cell proliferation, showed a statistically significant increase over the course of the treatment period and was significantly reduced at the end of the 8-week post-treatment follow-up period. Treg suppressive function at 24 weeks (79.9±9.6) and 48 weeks (89.5±4.1) were significantly higher compared to baseline (62.1±8.1) (p<0.01), suggesting enhanced and durable Treg suppressive function over the course of treatment. In contrast, Treg suppressive function (mean ±SD) was significantly decreased at the end of the 8-week follow-up period compared to end-of-treatment at week 48 (70.3±8.1 vs. 89.5±4.1, p <0.05). The study also evaluated serum biomarkers of inflammation, oxidative stress, and lipid peroxides. The available data up to 16 weeks after initiation of treatment suggest a decrease of these biomarker levels, which is consistent with the observed enhancement of Treg function. The evaluation of the full biomarker data is ongoing.

POC Study COYA 302: Increased Treg Suppressive Function In Vivo

POC Study COYA 302: Increased Treg Number In Vivo

POC Study COYA 302: Lowered Lipid Peroxide Biomarkers (interim data)

From the clinical safety perspective, the treatment used in the POC Study appeared to be well tolerated over the 48-week treatment period. The most common adverse event was mild injection-site reactions. No patient discontinued the study, and no deaths or other serious adverse events were reported.

COYA 302, in ALS preclinical toxicology studies

We performed a series of nonclinical studies for COYA 301 (low dose recombinant interleukin-2 (LD rhIL-2)) that includes central nervous system, cardiovascular and respiratory safety pharmacology assessments as well as a general assessment of repeat dose chronic (6-month) exposure toxicology studies in two species (rat and cynomolgus monkey). A 3-month combination toxicology study was also performed in rats to support chronic dosing for COYA 302 (rhIL-2 plus DRL_AB, an abatacept biosimilar). We believe that the data from these nonclinical studies provide a comprehensive nonclinical foundation for predicting human exposure, establishing safety margins, and informing clinical dose selection for the use of COYA 301 as a single agent and/or in combination with other therapeutic agents, such as with our combination therapeutic candidate COYA 302.

COYA 302 in FTD, Clinical Progress

In January of 2026, we announced that the FDA accepted our IND for COYA 302 for the treatment of FTD. We expect to advance COYA 302 for FTD in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of COYA 302

in patients with Non-Fluent Primary Progressive Aphasia Subtype of FTD. An overview of the proposed Phase 2 Study of COYA 302 in FTD is shown in the figure below.

Investigator Initiated Trials in FTD

Safety and feasibility

Nine individuals clinically diagnosed with FTD were enrolled into this study. The primary endpoints were the incidence and severity of adverse events. The most common adverse event was erythema at the injection site (33.3% of individuals), which was mild and recovered spontaneously. No serious adverse events were observed during the study.

Treg Suppression

Treg suppressive function was significantly increased starting as early as two weeks after dosing and remained significantly amplified throughout the 22-week treatment period.

Treg Percentage followed a similar pattern as Treg suppressive function, with significant separation from baseline occurring as early as 2 weeks post dosing and remained significantly elevated through week 22.

CD25 mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) was significantly increased as early as two weeks after dosing and remained significantly elevated through 22 weeks.

FOXP3 MFI was significantly increased as early as two weeks after dosing.

Cognitive Measures

MOCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) scores remained unchanged at week 22, compared to baseline (Baseline, 13.5 and week 22, 14) suggesting no decline in cognitive function over the 22-week period.

CDR-FTLD scores did not significantly change at week 22 compared to baseline levels (Baseline, 4.8 and week 22, 5.5), suggesting no decline in cognitive and functional status of the enrolled individuals over the 22-week treatment period.

These data are further described in the figures below:

COYA 302 in AD and PD

AD and PD share a similar disease pathogenesis to ALS that is associated with a heightened proinflammatory cascade involving dysfunctional Tregs and proinflammatory microglia and macrophages. We believe the biological redundancies in molecular immune pathways in these complex diseases limit the efficacy of many single drug therapies, requiring the development of novel therapeutics that can address this pathophysiologic complexity.

Our current priority for COYA 302 is to advance this combination in patients with ALS and FTD. We continue to believe that COYA 302 has potential in other neurodegenerative disorders such at AD and PD. We intend to pursue business development and strategic partnerships and/or grants to advance COYA 302 in these indications.

COYA 303

In January of 2025 we announced expansion of our investigational pipeline with a new product candidate called COYA 303 for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. Sustained inflammatory responses driven by dysfunctional immune regulation is a hallmark of serious autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases. COYA 303 is an investigational biologic combination of COYA 301(LD IL-2) and a glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) designed for subcutaneous administration. In April of 2025 we announced the publication of results from a preclinical study of COYA 303 in an in vitro human immune cell model, wherein COYA 303 exhibited a dual immunomodulatory mechanism of action resulting in an additive/synergistic anti-inflammatory effect. We believe this was due to increased Treg function and suppressed pro-inflammatory myeloid cells and responder T cells. In September of 2025, we announced results of a study designed to evaluate the effects of COYA 303 in an established in vivo lipopolysaccharide (LPS) mouse model of systemic and neuroinflammation. Results from the first animal cohort treated with COYA 303 demonstrated broad systemic and central immunomodulatory activity, including significant reductions in LPS-induced pro-inflammatory myeloid cells and associated cytokines, increases in anti-inflammatory immune cell subsets, and attenuation of neuroinflammation in the brain, compared to untreated animals. Additional results from this study were announced in November of 2025. On January 21, 2025 we announced the expansion of our investigational pipeline and advancement of COYA 303 for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. These data are further described in the figure below.

COYA 301

COYA 301, our low-dose interleukin 2 (IL-2) product candidate, is a biologic for subcutaneous administration intended to enhance Treg function and expand Treg numbers in vivo. We believe an increased ratio of functional Tregs shifts the balance in vivo in favor of anti-inflammatory Tregs to pro-inflammatory cells. See the below figure for a visual representation:

We are developing biologics and biologic combinations intended to ameliorate the inflammation and lack of self-tolerance that characterize certain neurodegenerative and autoimmune diseases, by increasing Treg suppressive and immunomodulatory functions.

COYA 301’s subcutaneous administration allows patients to be dosed in their homes, which we believe provides convenience and pharmacoeconomic advantages over existing products requiring administration in a hospital setting.

Investigator initiated Studies in AD

Open Label Study of LD IL-2 in 8 AD patients

In the first half of 2023, we announced results from a POC study in support of COYA 301. This open label study was conducted in eight patients with AD, and evaluated the safety and tolerability, biological activity, blood biomarkers, and preliminary efficacy of a treatment consisting of commercially available IL-2. Study data found that (i) cognitive function, as measured by three validated tools, either improved or did not decline, (ii) Treg function was significantly enhanced, (iii) pro-inflammatory blood cytokines and chemokines were significantly reduced with evidence of reduced neuroinflammation in the brain and (iv) the POC treatment appeared to be well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported.

Investigator Initiated Study of LD IL-2 in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD)

Open Label Study of LD IL-2 in 38 AD patients

On October 29, 2024, we announced that results from the investigator-initiated placebo-controlled Phase 2 POC clinical trial of LD IL-2 in patients with mild to moderate AD were announced on that same day at the 17th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease Conference, or CTAD24, in Madrid, Spain. The study was led by Dr. Alireza Faridar and Dr. Stanley Appel from the Houston Methodist Research Institute. Dr. Appel is a member of our Scientific Advisory Board. The study received funding from the Alzheimer's Association, the Gates Foundation, and the National Institute on Aging, with additional support from us.

Study Design

The investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trial evaluated two dosing regimens of subcutaneous LD IL-2 in 38 participants with AD that were between the ages of 50 to 86 and had Mini-Mental State Examination, or MMSE, scores ranging from 12 to 26.

Of the 38 total participants, 22 were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 5 days of LD IL-2 (106 IU/day), or LD IL-2 q4wks, or placebo every 4 weeks for 21 weeks. An additional 16 participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive 5-day cycles of LD IL-2 every 2 weeks, or LD IL-2 q2wks, or placebo for the same 21-week duration. All participants were monitored for 9 weeks post-treatment, resulting in a total study period of 30 weeks. Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were comparable among the treatment groups.

The primary endpoint was the incidence and severity of adverse events, or AEs, with the secondary endpoint evaluating changes in Tregs. Exploratory endpoints assessed changes in cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF, AD-related biomarkers, and cognitive status.

Study Results

The study successfully met its primary and secondary endpoints, demonstrating that treatment with LD IL-2 is safe and well-tolerated in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Notably, LD IL-2 showed targeted biological activity, evidenced by a significant expansion of regulatory T cell populations in the LD IL-2 q4wks group without any off-target effects on other peripheral lymphocytes. Additionally, the q4wks regimen led to significant improvements (defined by increased levels) in cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF-soluble Aβ42 levels, an indicator of amyloid pathology, and showed a promising trend in stabilizing cognitive function, with a clinically meaningful 4.93-point improvement 1 in the ADAS-Cog14 score compared to placebo.

In contrast, the q2wks group, representing the higher total dose cohort, did not exhibit benefits in exploratory endpoints, underscoring the importance of appropriate IL-2 dosing for maintaining Treg functionality and its associated effects on CSF biomarkers and cognitive outcomes. LD IL-2 q2wks dosing also resulted in a reduction of Foxp3 expression, a critical marker of Treg functionality (a lower level or loss of Foxp3 expression is associated with unstable/dysfunctional Tregs). While these unstable Tregs continue to show

suppressive immune response in vitro, they may lose their immunomodulatory functions in vivo, potentially explaining the dose impact on Treg populations and associated exploratory endpoints. As a result of these data, we will likely advance LD IL-2 q4wks.

Primary Endpoint (Safety and Tolerability): All patients completed the 21-week treatment phase. The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events, or AEs, was similar between the LD IL-2 treatment groups and the placebo group, with no serious AEs or deaths reported. The most common AEs in the LD IL-2 groups included mild erythema at the injection site and a slight increase in eosinophil counts.

Secondary Endpoint (Treg Cell Populations): There was a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the percentage of CD4+ FOXP3+CD25 high Tregs, mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of Foxp3, Treg CD25 MFI, and Treg suppression of T responders following both dosing regimens of LD IL-2 treatment compared to placebo. Notably, the LD IL-2 q4wks treatment group showed greater enhancement in both Treg numbers and Foxp3 MFI compared to the q2wks group. The loss of Foxp3 expression in the q2wks group (back to baseline levels equivalent to placebo) indicated that higher IL-2 dosing may compromise Treg functionality. Repeated stimulation of Tregs without sufficient rest periods has been reported to result in exhausted and unstable Treg populations. Published studies also suggest an inverse relationship between IL-2 dose and Treg functionality.

Exploratory Endpoint (Cognitive Function & Cerebrospinal Fluid, or CSF, Biomarkers)

Although not powered for significance, the analyses of exploratory endpoints also showed encouraging results.

Cognitive Function: The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog14) scores on day 148 showed a slight improvement following LD IL-2 q4wks administration (change from baseline: -0.450), vs. placebo, which worsened 4.480 from baseline, demonstrating a clinically meaningful difference of 4.93 points (P=0.061). This cognitive effect was not observed in the LD IL-2 q2wks administration, which demonstrated a similar decline as placebo.

Stabilization of ADCS-CGIC (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive Subscale) scores was observed in both the IL-2 q4wks and IL-2 q2wks groups on day 148 compared to the placebo arm, which declined from baseline.

The change from baseline in the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes, or CDR-SOB, on Day 148 was 1.401 in the LD IL-2 q4wks group, 1.976 in the LD IL-2 q2wks group, and 1.893 in the placebo group, suggesting a 27% slower decline in CDR-SOB scores following LD IL-2 q4wks treatment compared to the placebo group. These findings suggest that LD IL-2 q4wks may be an optimal dose for cognitive effects in mild to moderate AD, which was the dose associated with a robust and sustained increase in Treg populations along with enhanced expression of the IL-2 receptor, CD25, and the Treg transcription factor, FoxP3. Furthermore, the cognitive effect of this dose was associated with significant improvements in AD pathology in the CSF and stabilization of CSF inflammatory markers.

CSF Aβ42: Low CSF Aβ42 is universally associated with AD, and higher CSF Aβ42 levels are independently associated with slowing cognitive impairment and clinical decline. Increases in Aβ42 may represent a mechanism of potential benefit of intervention. LD IL-2 q4wks treatment significantly improved CSF Aβ42 levels after the 21-week treatment, compared to the placebo group (p = 0.045). LD IL-2 q2wks treatment did not significantly modify CSF Aβ42 levels. These data further suggest the dose-dependent effect of LD IL-2 on Treg cell populations (i.e. FOXP3) is associated with effects on CSF Aβ42.

CSF Neurofilament Light Chain, or NfL: NfL is increasingly recognized as a promising biomarker for neurodegeneration (neuronal/axonal degeneration) in AD. Residing predominantly within myelinated axons, NfL is a cytoskeletal protein that plays a role in maintaining neuronal structural integrity and axonal caliber. Neuronal damage in neurodegenerative diseases releases NfL into the extracellular space and eventually into the CSF, resulting in higher CSF NfL levels in AD.

CSF NfL levels remained stable following LD IL-2 q4wks administration and almost reached statistical significance vs. placebo (which increased by 217.3pg/mL) (p=0.060). CSF NfL increased by 148.0 pg/mL in the LD IL-2 q2wks arm. These data suggest the dose-dependent effect of LD IL-2 on Treg cell populations (i.e. FOXP3) is associated with effects on CSF NfL.

CSF Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein, or GFAP: GFAP is an astrocytic cytoskeleton intermediate filament protein. GFAP is a marker of astrogliosis, which is the abnormal activation and proliferation of astrocytes. Astrogliosis is associated with Aβ plaques in the prodromal stages of AD.

CSF GFAP levels showed a slight improvement following LD IL-2 q4wks administration (change from baseline: -214.1 pg/mL) and remained almost stable in the LD IL-2 q2wks group (change from baseline: 17.4 pg/mL), but increased by 1548.99 pg/mL in the placebo group.

On February 5, 2025 we announced additional results from the investigator-initiated, 21-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, exploratory Phase 2 study of LD IL-2 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).described above.

Statistically significant reduced levels of pro-inflammatory markers were observed in patients receiving a five-day treatment of subcutaneous LD IL-2 on a monthly cycle in comparison to a biweekly 5-day administration or placebo. Lower blood levels of the pro-inflammatory chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2) (p<0.05) and pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-15 (p <0.001) were statistically significant, and a statistically significant increase in the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-4 (p<0.01) in patients receiving monthly cycles of LD IL-2 was observed, compared to patients receiving placebo. At the end of the five-month treatment period when treatment was removed, the anti-inflammatory benefits reverted back to placebo levels. In addition, patients receiving LD IL-2 cycles at the higher biweekly frequency showed a smaller impact on these factors compared to monthly LD IL-2, supporting the potential beneficial effects of monthly LD IL-2.

We intend to explore partnerships with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that own strategic compounds that could potentially be suitable candidates for safe and effective new combination therapies with COYA 301.

200 Series, Treg-derived Exosomes

We are developing a Treg-derived exosome potential therapeutic modality consisting of both allogeneic Treg-derived exosomes and antigen derived Treg-directed exosomes that we believe may have unique advantages due to their nanosized (having dimensions limited to nanometers) and non-cell characteristics and to the potential for customization. Treg-derived exosomes are manufactured following the expansion and conversion of Tregs. The Treg exosomes are nanovesicles, tiny sacs released by cells that carry chemical messages between cells, produced by the Tregs and released to the bloodstream and different tissues to communicate with other cells, including pro-inflammatory T and B cells. Treg exosomes contain different types of cargo, such as proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids, and have suppressive contact-mediated receptors and proteins that are typically present on the parent Tregs, allowing them to efficiently modulate the immune and inflammatory responses.

We have filed intellectual property claims on the contents of the exosomes, namely the micro RNAs that are reproducibly represented from batch to batch. Many of these micro RNAs confer anti-inflammatory functionality as a mechanism of action and we believe may explain the exosomes’ immunomodulatory function. The exosome field is an emerging and new area at present and understanding the functional aspects of the exosomes is an important but evolving regulatory aspect. We have filed intellectual property claims for compositions of matter that teach the reproducible micro RNA contents. To date, no patents have been issued.

We have developed technology to collect large volumes of Treg exosomes from the tissue culture media that is utilized in the Treg conversion and expansion process. One of the potential limitations of anti-inflammatory Treg cells is that they could be susceptible to the noxious, pro-inflammatory environment observed in some serious and progressive conditions, with the possibility of being converted to a dysfunctional Treg phenotype. Because Treg exosomes are not cells and are end-stage differentiated, they cannot be phenotypically changed, which is the shifting from a type of cell to another type of cell, by the inflammatory environment. In addition, Treg exosomes’ very small size (between 30-200 nm) makes them able to readily reach sites of inflammation and cross biological barriers in the body, including the blood-brain barrier.

We believe our data demonstrates the anti-inflammatory activity of Treg exosomes in in vitro assays and in vivo animal models of acute inflammation and ALS, following intravenous and intranasal administration. Further, we believe our research demonstrates that Treg exosomes exhibit greater anti-inflammatory potency than mesenchymal exosomes, as demonstrated in research recently published in the journal Frontiers of Immunology. Mesenchymal exosomes are extracellular vesicles that are derived from mesenchymal stem cells which are a heterogeneous population of cells that are isolated from various tissues, including bone marrow, adipose tissue, umbilical cords, and even urine.

We believe these Treg exosomes may provide an extensive arsenal of suppressive signaling components and anti-inflammatory mediators that are potentially able to suppress pro-inflammatory cascades in the body, including the brain.

While we maintain internal preclinical research and development activities in exosomes generally, we are simultaneously investigating alternative exosome technologies developed by academic institutions or commercial enterprises which we may be able to access, through external partnerships, licensing, and/or strategic collaborations.

COYA 201

Our allogeneic Treg exosome product candidate, COYA 201, is being developed following Treg conversion and expansion from healthy donors. We believe the manufacturing process under GMP conditions to date has shown consistent batch-to-batch comparability and adequate long-term stability. In addition, we believe the proprietary manufacturing and cryopreservation processes are highly efficient and will be able to supply a 12-month treatment for five patients from a single manufacturing run.

We believe that our Treg exosome modality for allogeneic use may allow targeting multiple indications in the neurodegenerative, autoimmune, and metabolic therapeutic categories.

In evaluations of our Treg exosome product in a preclinical lupus nephritis model in mice, COYA 201 was administered at different dose levels and was well tolerated, and no fatalities were observed at the administered dose of 1x1010 exosomes (low dosage level). However, as part of this dose-escalation study, as a result of toxicity when administered in extremely high doses (1x1011 exosomes, or ten times the low dosage level) administered twice weekly, death in six animals (out of a total of 12) was observed. Dose escalation studies are standard in the early development of new treatments and the assessment of the “maximum tolerated dose” and identification of the dose that produces lethality in 50% of animals, are also common studies in early preclinical development. The primary endpoint of this study was proteinuria (amount of protein in urine) to assess renal function. The primary endpoint was not met. Currently, the side effect profile of our product candidates in humans is unknown. We continue to evaluate different potential indications to advance the development of COYA 201 into clinical studies. Following the completion of the preclinical studies in different animal models of disease, we will evaluate the data to potentially conduct further preclinical studies and to select a potential clinical indication for human studies.

We conducted a preclinical study in a well-established animal model of systemic scleroderma, intended to evaluate the biological activity and potential efficacy of COYA 201 administered intravenously and intranasally. This study involved a bleomycin induced systemic scleroderma mouse model. The overall study design involved 15 animals/group, in 4 groups- vehicle, low dose exosome, high dose exosome, and saline. The endpoints measured included skin punch weight, skin histopathology, and lung histopathology. We are currently evaluating the results from this initial animal study and will use the data to guide the next steps for this development program.

COYA 201 has been tested in an in vitro humanized model of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis. We have conducted an initial preclinical study in a human liver microtissue model designed for the study of mechanisms of induction of liver inflammation and fibrosis and in vitro screening of drug efficacy. The model includes all the critical liver cells and inducers needed to recapitulate the inflamed liver disease state and serves as a powerful model for drug discovery and development. This cellular liver model involves co-culture of primary human hepatocytes, Kupffer cells, liver endothelial cells, and stellate cells and was evaluated across multiple groups, vehicle control, low dose exosomes, high dose exosomes, and saline solution. The primary objective of this initial study was to evaluate the biological activity of COYA 201 by assessing inflammation, measured by the levels of released pro-inflammatory cytokines, and fibrosis, measured by the release of procollagen by the hepatic cells. Following the establishment of the liver microtissues, the system was fed with high sugar, high insulin, and free fatty acids for 10 days. Samples for assessment of cytokines were collected on Day 5 of the study, and samples for assessment of procollagen were collected on Days 7 and 10. We observed a significant decrease (p <0.05) in the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin 8 (IL-8), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), and macrophage inflammatory protein 1 alpha (MIP-1α), compared to the untreated controls. We also observed a significant increase (p <0.0001) in the secretion of the anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin 10 (IL-10), compared to the untreated control. In addition, we observed a mild decrease in procollagen that did not reach statistical significance, when compared to controls. The study met its primary objective by demonstrating that COYA 201 was biologically active in this model. Results from this study will guide the next steps in the early development of this program.

COYA 206

As part of our Treg exosome development programs, we are developing our next generation of antigen directed Treg-derived exosome product candidates. In September of 2023 we licensed the exclusive, worldwide rights of a proprietary Exosome Engineering Technology from Carnegie Mellon University with potential applications across multiple indications, including neurodegeneration, autoimmune, and oncology (the “Carnegie Mellon License Agreement”).

The Carnegie Mellon License Agreement involves the intellectual property rights to the research, development, and manufacturing of exosome-polymer hybrids (“EPHs”), a tether-based exosome functionalization strategy that enables Treg exosomes to be homed to proteins of interest, while delivering select payloads into targeted cells. See the below image for a visual representation of a tethering exosome. Functionalized exosomes with an immunomodulatory protein, FasL, have demonstrated their biological activity both in vitro and in vivo. FasL-functionalized exosomes, when bioprinted on a collagen matrix, allows spatial induction of cell death in tumor cells and, when injected in mice, suppresses proliferation of pro-inflammatory T cells.

We believe this proprietary technology sets the foundation to produce targeted Treg exosome potential therapeutics that are directed to epitopes, the part of an antigen molecule to which an antibody attaches itself, and proteins of interest, while delivering growth factors, drugs or other cargo, representing an innovative technology that could be advantageous relative to other Treg directed potential therapeutic modalities.

We are working on the characterization of the EPHs and are planning to do target validation following completion of this work to select product candidates and indications for future development.

Key Milestones

We will continue to conduct research and development activities for our various product candidates and indications over the course of 2025-2026. Our anticipated developmental milestones are provided below:

The dates reflected in the foregoing are estimates only, and there can be no assurances that the events included will be completed on the anticipated timeline presented, or at all. Further, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in the development of any of our current product candidates or any other product candidate we may develop in the future, or that any of our current product candidates, or any other product candidate we may develop in the future, will receive FDA approval for any indication.

Competition

We believe that our investigational and proprietary biologic combination therapy, COYA 302, with a dual immunomodulatory mechanism of action represents a next generation approach that has competitive advantages over monotherapy approaches that target a single pathway to treating inflammatory disorders, which are driven by complex and multi-factorial pathways. COYA 302 is intended to, in-vivo, enhance the anti-inflammatory function of regulatory T cells (Tregs) and suppress the inflammation produced by activated monocytes and macrophages. COYA 302 is comprised of COYA 301 (proprietary low dose interleukin-2 (LD IL-2)) and CTLA4-Ig and is being developed for subcutaneous administration for the treatment of patients with ALS, FTD, AD and PD. These mechanisms may have additive or synergistic effects. We believe that COYA 301 is ideally situated to serve as a backbone drug in combination with other biologics that synergistically modulate the immune system and represent novel approaches to treating inflammatory disorders.

We believe the ability of our product candidates to enhance Treg function ex vivo (Treg cell therapy and Treg exosomes) and in vivo (biologics), potentially resulting in amelioration of the chronic and progressive inflammatory environment that underlies certain serious diseases,represents a meaningful competitive advantage and may benefit us in our goal of successfully developing novel and highly effective treatments for neurodegenerative, autoimmune, and metabolic diseases. We believe our Treg exosomes are significantly more potent in suppressing inflammation than mesenchymal cell derived exosomes. Moreover, we are developing technology in conjunction with Carnegie Mellon University to target Treg exosomes to proteins of interest while loading with cargo of interest, requiring no genetic manipulation, while CAR Treg approaches require genetic manipulation. Moreover, Treg exosomes are end stage differentiated and cannot be converted in-vivo to a dysfunctional state, unlike cells. Our Treg cell therapy is a polyclonal product that requires no genetic manipulation. Moreover, we have developed bioreactors to shorten the time to obtain the final product (within

10-12 days). Finally, we have developed the ability to cryopreserve Treg cells and rethaw while maintaining full functional potency, allowing for chronic dosing from one patient manufacturing run.

However, the pharmaceutical industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We will continue to face competition from various global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies that engage in drug development activities.

Many of our competitors have similar products that focus on the same diseases and conditions that our current and future pipeline product candidates address and may address in the future. Many of our competitors have greater financial flexibility to deploy capital in certain areas as well as more commercial and other resources, marketing and manufacturing organizations, and larger research and development staff. As a result, these companies may be able to pursue strategies or approvals that we are not able to finance or otherwise pursue and may receive FDA, or other applicable regulatory approvals more efficiently or rapidly than us. Also, our competitors may have more experience in marketing and selling their products post-approval and gaining market acceptance more quickly.

Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Our product candidates could become less competitive if our competitors are able to license or acquire technology that is more effective or less costly and thereby offer an improved or a cheaper alternative to our product candidates.

Clinical-stage competitor companies developing drugs for ALS include: Ionis Pharmaceuticals (in collaboration with Biogen), Neurizon Therapeutics, Alchemab Therapeutics (in partnership with Eli Lilly), Athira Pharma, NeuroSense Therapeutics,

Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Medicinova, Inc., and Clene Nanomedicine.

Competitor companies developing Biologic approaches to enhancing Tregs, leveraging IL-2 formulations, include: Amgen (AMGN) (IL-2 mutein for GVHD and autoimmune diseases), Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) (Pegylated IL-2 for autoimmune diseases), Merck (MRK) (IL-2 mutein for autoimmune diseases), Xencor (XNCR) (IL-2 Fc Fusion Protein for autoimmune diseases), Cue Biopharma (CUE) (IL-2 bispecific for GVHD and autoimmune diseases), and Moderna (MRNA) (LNP encapsulated mRNA based therapeutic encoding IL-2 for autoimmune diseases), and ILTOO Pharma (low dose IL-2 formulation).

Competitor companies developing Treg based cellular therapeutics include: Abata Therapeutics (CAR Treg for autoimmune diseases), Sonoma Biotherapeutics (CAR Treg for autoimmune diseases), Sangamo Therapeutics (SGMO) (CAR Treg for Renal Disease, IBD), TRex Bio (Treg cell therapy for Immunology/Inflammation), Mozart Therapeutics (CD8 Treg cell modulators for Celiac Disease/IBD), GentiBio (Treg cell therapy generated from T-effector cells for T1 Diabetes), Kyverna Therapeutics (KYTX) (Autologous and Allogeneic cell therapies for autoimmune diseases), Cellenkos (Allogeneic umbilical cord blood Tregs for multiple conditions), AZ Therapies (Allogeneic CAR Tregs for CNS Diseases), and Quell Therapeutics (Autologous CAR Tregs for liver transplantation, T1 Diabetes and ALS).

To our knowledge, there exists no other Treg-derived exosome competitor. However, there exists other cell derived exosome competitors including: Evox Therapeutics (Mesenchymal Derived Exosomes), Capricor Therapeutics (CAPR) (Cardiosphere Derived Exosomes), and Exopharm (Platelet Derived Exosomes), and Rion (Platelet Derived Exosomes).

We expect any product candidates that we develop and commercialize will compete on the basis of, among other things, efficacy, safety, convenience of administration and delivery, price and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. We also expect to face competition in our efforts to identify appropriate collaborators or partners to help commercialize our product candidate portfolio in our target commercial markets.

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs, including biologics. We, along with our vendors, contract research organizations and contract manufacturers, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs and biologics and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and implementing regulations and other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. In the case of biologics, the section of the FDCA that governs the approval of drugs via New Drug Applications (“NDAs”) does not apply to the approval of biologics. Rather, biologics, such as gene therapy products, are approved for marketing under provisions of the Public Health Service Act ("PHSA") via a Biologics

License Application (“BLA”). However, the application process and requirements for approval of BLAs are very similar to those for NDAs. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require 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, the approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions or consequences could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, issuance of clinical holds for ongoing studies, withdrawal of approvals, warning or untitled letters, product withdrawals or recalls, product seizures, relabeling or repackaging, total or partial suspensions of manufacturing or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

The process required by the FDA before our product candidates are approved for potential therapeutic indications and may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

•

completion of extensive non-clinical studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including studies conducted in accordance with good laboratory practice, or GLP, requirements;

•

submission to the FDA of an IND application, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin;

•

approval by an institutional review board, or IRB, or independent ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each trial may be initiated;

•

performance of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for each proposed indication;

•

submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA;

•

a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA or BLA, to accept the filing for review;

•

satisfactory completion of one or more FDA pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug will be produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•

potential FDA audit of the clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA or BLA;

•

payment of user fees for FDA review of the NDA or BLA; and

•

FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA, including consideration of the views of any FDA advisory committee, prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug in the U.S.

Preclinical Studies and Clinical Trials for Biologics

Before testing any drug in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for potential therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP requirements for safety/toxicology studies. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research patients will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, and imposes a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND may result in the FDA not allowing clinical trials to commence or not allowing clinical trials to commence on the terms originally specified in the IND.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research patients provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trial are minimized and are reasonable related to the anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. The FDA, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. There also are

requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. Information about clinical trials, including clinical trials results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor can submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the trial was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials to evaluate potential therapeutic indications to support BLAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap.

•

Phase I—Phase I clinical trials involve initial introduction of the investigational product into healthy human volunteers or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are typically designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, excretion the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness.

•

Phase II—Phase II clinical trials typically involve administration of the investigational product to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks.

•

Phase III—Phase III clinical trials typically involve administration of the investigational product to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval and physician labeling.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended potential therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase IV clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators fifteen days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human volunteers and any clinically important increase in the severity or rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional non-clinical studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements.

The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and manufacturers must develop, among other things, methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. Marketing Approval for Biologics

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, 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 a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. A BLA must contain proof of the drug’s safety and efficacy. The marketing application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a drug may be marketed in the U.S.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting a BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews a BLA 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. Under the goals and polices agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, program to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. The REMS program 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 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, which 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 a BLA, 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 a BLA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for the 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, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed 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 IV clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the U.S. for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process, though companies developing orphan products are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing and waiver of application fees.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same potential therapeutic agent for the same indication, except in limited circumstances, such as a

subsequent product’s showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the original applicant cannot produce sufficient quantities of product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different potential therapeutic agents for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same potential therapeutic agent for a different indication than that for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for the same potential therapeutic agent for the same indication before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Further, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Expedited Development and Review Programs for Drugs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval, and the purpose of these programs is to either expedite the development or review of important new drugs to get them to patients earlier than under standard FDA development and review procedures.

A new drug is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed, meaning that the agency may review portions of the marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application, as well as Priority Review, discussed below.

In addition, a new drug may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program beginning as early as Phase I, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review and approval process, including Priority Review designation and Accelerated Approval. A product is eligible for Priority Review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. Under Priority Review, the FDA must review an application in six months compared to ten months for a standard review.

Additionally, products are eligible for Accelerated Approval if they can be shown to have an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or an effect on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality which is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

Accelerated approval is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. The FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under Accelerated Approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, the FDA currently requires, as a condition for Accelerated Approval, that all advertising and promotional materials that are intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, and that after 120 days following marketing approval, all advertising and promotional materials must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination or publication.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval but may expedite the development or review process.

U.S. Post-Approval Requirements for Drugs and Biologics

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, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored

scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an BLA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase IV clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, drug manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our contract manufacturers. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. There is also a continuing, annual prescription drug product program user fee.

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 revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, requirements for post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS. 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;

•

safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases or other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product;

•

fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

•

refusal of the FDA to approve applications or supplements to approved applications, or withdrawal of product approvals;

•

product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products;

•

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; and

•

consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs; or mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and issuance of corrective information.

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of product candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

U.S. Coverage and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidate for which we may seek regulatory approval. Sales in the United States will depend, in part, on the availability of sufficient coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, which include government health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and the Veterans Health Administration, as well as managed care organizations and private health insurers. Prices at which we or our customers seek reimbursement for our product candidates can be subject to challenge, reduction or denial by third-party payors. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs.

The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product is typically separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. In the United States, there is no uniform policy among payors for coverage or reimbursement. Decisions regarding whether to cover a product, the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies, but also have their own methods and approval processes. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that can require manufacturers to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of a product to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product that receives approval. Third-party payors may not consider our product candidates to be medically necessary or cost-effective compared to other available therapies, or the rebates required to secure favorable coverage may not yield an adequate margin over cost or may not enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development. Additionally, decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

In the United States, there has been, and continues to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the profitable sale of approved drug products.

Among policy makers and payors in the United States, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, increasing transparency, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in March 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA, a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of health spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry, and impose additional policy reforms. The ACA contains provisions that subject products to potential competition by lower-cost products, increase rebates to the government for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs; add a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increase the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; establish annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs; expand the entities eligible for enrollment in the 340B program, and create a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, under which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or BBA, effective as of 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive and Congressional legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA in the main challenge to the constitutionality of the law in 2012. Specifically, in June 2021, the Supreme Court held that the individual mandate and corresponding penalty was constitutional because it would be considered a tax by the federal government. The Supreme Court also upheld federal subsidies for purchasers of insurance through federally facilitated exchanges in a decision released in June 2015.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2032. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. In addition, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, as of January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products.

Most significantly, in August 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, into law. This statute marks the most significant action by Congress with respect to the pharmaceutical industry since adoption of the ACA in 2010. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation; redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new manufacturer discount program. Under an annual process, CMS has negotiated prices for ten drugs whose new prices began in 2026 and for another 15 drugs whose new prices will be effective in 2027. The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges.

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including restrictions or prohibitions on certain marketing practices, reporting of specified categories of remuneration provided to health care practitioners, and reporting and justification of price increases greater than a specified level. In some cases, states have designed programs to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing, though the federal government has been slow to approve any such plans.

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 pharmaceuticals and other healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates.

Other Healthcare Laws and Regulations

If we obtain regulatory approval of our products, we may be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales and marketing strategies. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, and physician sunshine laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting, receiving or paying remuneration (a term interpreted broadly to include anything of value, including, for example, gifts, discounts and credits), directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, an item or reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can result in significant civil monetary and criminal penalties, per kickback plus three times the amount of remuneration and a prison term per violation. Further, violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can also form the basis for False Claims Act liability (discussed below). A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only government programs.

Additionally, the civil False Claims Act (the “FCA”) prohibits knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. government. Actions under the FCA may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Violations of the FCA can result in very significant monetary penalties, for each false claim and treble the amount of the government’s damages. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The federal government continues to use the FCA, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigations and prosecutions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the U.S. Such investigations and prosecutions frequently involve, for example, the alleged promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales and marketing practices. The government has obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the FCA in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with the FCA and other applicable fraud and abuse laws.

We may be subject to the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibits, among other things, the offering or transferring of remuneration to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary that the person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular supplier of Medicare or Medicaid payable items or services. Federal government price reporting laws require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs.

The U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, includes a fraud and abuse provision referred to as the HIPAA All-Payor Fraud Law, which imposes criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Many states also have 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.

We may also be subject to federal transparency laws, including the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which was part of the ACA and requires manufacturers of certain drugs and biologics, among others, to track and disclose payments and other transfers of value they make to U.S. physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as physician ownership and investment interests in the manufacturer. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. This information is subsequently made publicly available in a searchable format on a CMS website. Failure to disclose required information may result in civil monetary penalties for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual submission. Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians and/or other healthcare providers.

As noted above, analogous state laws and regulations, such as, state anti-kickback and false claims laws may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. There are also state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, imprisonment, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. 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 significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

Government Regulation of Drugs Outside of the United States

To market any product outside of the U.S., we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization or identification of an alternate regulatory pathway, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution of our products. For instance, in the United Kingdom and the European Economic Area, or the EEA (comprised of the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and

Norway), medicinal products must be authorized for marketing by using either the centralized authorization procedure or national authorization procedures.

•

Centralized procedure—If pursuing marketing authorization of a product candidate for a potential therapeutic indication under the centralized procedure, following the opinion of the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or, CHMP, the European Commission issues a single marketing authorization valid across the EEA. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human medicines derived from biotechnology processes or advanced therapy medicinal products (such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products), products that contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, viral diseases, and officially designated orphan medicines. For medicines that do not fall within these categories, an applicant has the option of submitting an application for a centralized marketing authorization to the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, as long as the medicine concerned contains a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, is a significant potential therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or if its authorization would be in the interest of public health in the EEA. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of potential therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding clock stops.

•

National authorization procedures—There are also two other possible routes to authorize products for potential therapeutic indications in several countries, which are available for products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure.

•

Decentralized procedure—Using the decentralized procedure, an applicant may apply for simultaneous authorization in more than one EU country of medicinal products that have not yet been authorized in any EU country and that do not fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure.

•

Mutual recognition procedure—In the mutual recognition procedure, a medicine is first authorized in one EU Member State, in accordance with the national procedures of that country.

•

Following authorization through either procedure, additional marketing authorizations can be sought from other EU countries in a procedure whereby the countries concerned recognize the validity of the original, national marketing authorization.

In the EEA, new products for potential therapeutic indications that are authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new potential therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EEA are similar in principle to those in the U.S. In the EEA a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved potential therapeutic indication. During this ten-year orphan market exclusivity period, no marketing authorization application shall be accepted, and no marketing authorization shall be granted for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. The ten-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established

that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls.

The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU Member States govern the system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. Under this system, an applicant must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific trial site after the competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by, among other documents, an investigational medicinal product dossier (the “Common Technical Document”) with supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2005/28/EC, where relevant the implementing national provisions of the individual EU Member States and further detailed in applicable guidance documents.

In April 2014, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014 (the “Clinical Trials Regulation”) was adopted. It is expected that the new Clinical Trials Regulation will apply following confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS, the centralized European Union portal and database for clinical trials foreseen by the regulation, through an independent audit. The regulation becomes applicable six months after the European Commission publishes notice of this confirmation. The Clinical Trials Regulation will be directly applicable in all the EU Member States, repealing the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. Conduct of all clinical trials performed in the European Union will continue to be bound by currently applicable provisions until the new Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable. The extent to which ongoing clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation will depend on when the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable and on the duration of the individual clinical trial. If a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial. The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, the “EU portal”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union, previously governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, is now governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. While the Data Protection Directive did not apply to organizations based outside the EU, the GDPR has expanded its reach to include any business, regardless of its location, that provides goods or services to residents in the EU. This expansion would incorporate any clinical trial activities in EU members states. The GDPR imposes strict requirements on controllers and processors of personal data, including special protections for “sensitive information” which includes health and genetic information of data patients residing in the EU. GDPR grants individuals the opportunity to object to the processing of their personal information, allows them to request deletion of personal information in certain circumstances, and provides the individual with an express right to seek legal remedies in the event the individual believes his or her rights have been violated. Further, the GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the U.S. or other regions that have not been deemed to offer “adequate” privacy protections. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the European Union Member States, which may deviate slightly from the GDPR, may result in fines of up to 4% of global revenues, or €20,000,000, whichever is greater. As a result of the implementation of the GDPR, we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules.

There is significant uncertainty related to the manner in which data protection authorities will seek to enforce compliance with GDPR. For example, it is not clear if the authorities will conduct random audits of companies doing business in the EU, or if the authorities will wait for complaints to be filed by individuals who claim their rights have been violated. Enforcement uncertainty and the costs associated with ensuring GDPR compliance are onerous and may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Should we utilize third-party distributors, compliance with such foreign governmental regulations would generally be the responsibility of such distributors, who may be independent contractors over whom we have limited control.

Environmental Regulation

We are subject to numerous foreign, federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations relating to, among other matters, safe working conditions, product stewardship and end-of-life handling or disposition of products, and environmental protection, including those governing the generation, storage, handling, use, transportation and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials. Some of these laws and regulations require us to obtain licenses or permits to conduct our operations. Environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent over time. Although the costs to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including requirements in the U.S. and the European Union relating to the restriction of use of hazardous substances in products, have not been material, we cannot predict the impact on our business of new or amended laws or regulations or any changes in the way existing and future laws and regulations are interpreted or enforced, nor can we ensure we will be able to obtain or maintain any required licenses or permits.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our future product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an BLA plus the time between the submission date of an BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 ("BPCIA") significantly changed the regulatory environment for biologics.

The BPCIA includes, among other provisions:

•

A 12-year exclusivity period from the date of first licensure, or BLA approval, of the reference product, during which approval of a 351(k) application referencing that product may not be made effective;

•

A four-year exclusivity period from the date of first licensure of the reference product, during which a 351(k) application referencing that product may not be submitted; and

•

An exclusivity period for certain biological products that have been approved through the 351(k) pathway as interchangeable biosimilars.

The BPCIA also establishes procedures for identifying and resolving patent disputes involving applications submitted under section 351(k) of the PHSA.

The BPCIA also created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be highly similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

The BPCIA is complex and its interpretation and implementation by the FDA are still somewhat unpredictable. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may

impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate effect, implementation, and meaning of the BPCIA is subject to uncertainty.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biological products, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on the website www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of a clinical trial are then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of clinical trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of clinical development programs as well as clinical trial design.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), BLAs or supplements to BLAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the biological product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product with orphan product designation except a product with a new active ingredient that is a molecularly targeted cancer product intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and directed at a molecular target determined by FDA to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer that is subject to a BLA submitted on or after August 18, 2020.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (“BPCA”) provides a six-month extension of any non-patent exclusivity for a biologic if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug or biologic in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Employees

We have eight full-time employees, and utilize consultants, contract research organizations and third parties to perform our pre-clinical studies, clinical studies, administrative, and financial functions. We believe our relations with our employees are good. We anticipate that the number of people we employ may grow significantly as we continue to develop our current product candidates or if we develop new product candidates in the future.

Intellectual Property and Protection

As of March 1, 2025, our patent estate derived from our relationship with The Houston Methodist Hospital includes one U.S. non-provisional patent application, six foreign patent applications, and five pending Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) applications, each co-owned with or in-licensed from The Houston Methodist Hospital. These patent applications are directed to our Treg and exosome compositions and methods of use, methods of Treg and exosome manufacture, and methods of in vivo Treg expansion via combination therapies, among other things. If any patents issue from or claim priority to these patent applications, the patents are expected to expire in 2040 and 2042, without giving effect to any potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustments and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees. All of our Houston Methodist Hospital patents have composition and method claims, with the exception of a biomarker patent, which has only method claims.

In addition, our patent estate derived from our relationship with ARScience Biotherapeutics, Inc. (described below) includes one published patent application and one provision patent application. The patents, if granted, are expected to expire in 2041 and 2043, respectively, without giving effect to any potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustments and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees. The ARScience Biotherapeutics, Inc. patents have composition, method, and utility claims.

In addition, our patent estate derived from our relationship with Dr Reddy’s Laboratories includes one published patent application. This patent, if granted, is expected to expire in 2039, without giving effect to any potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustments and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees. The Dr. Reddy’s patent has composition, method, and utility claims.

In addition, our patent estate derived from our relationship with the University of Nebraska includes two provisional patent applications. These patents, if granted, are expected to expire in 2044, without giving effect to any potential patent term extensions or

patent term adjustments and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees. The University of Nebraska patents have use claims.

Finally, our patent estate derived from our relationship with Carnegie Mellon includes one pending patent application. The patent, if granted, would be expected to expire in 2043, without giving effect to any potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustments and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees. The Carnegie Mellon patent has method claims.

Material Contracts

Development and License Agreement with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories

In December 2023, we entered into a Development and License Agreement (the “DRL Development Agreement”) with DRL and its affiliate, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories SA (collectively, "Dr. Reddy's") , pursuant to which, among other things, we granted to Dr. Reddy's an exclusive, royalty-bearing right and license (the "License") to commercialize COYA 302, a proprietary co-pack kit containing low dose IL-2 and CTLA4-Ig, (“COYA 302” or the “Product”) solely for use in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (“ALS" or the “Field”) in the United States, Canada, the European Union and the United Kingdom (collectively, the “New Territories”). We previously granted DRL an exclusive license to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize the Product for ALS and certain other indications in all other countries (other than the New Territories, Japan, Mexico, and in each country in South America), pursuant to the DRL Agreement entered between us and DRL, effective as of April 1, 2023. As part of the DRL Development Agreement, we are responsible for certain development activities to advance the Product through clinical development.

In June 2024, we entered into the First Amendment to the DRL Development Agreement (the "First Amendment"), with DRL and Dr. Reddy's, pursuant to which, among other things, Dr. Reddy's paid us a one-time payment of $3.9 million and, in return, Dr. Reddy's will have no obligation to pay the first $6.0 million in royalty payments that would have otherwise been payable to us under the DRL Development Agreement.

The collaboration is managed by a joint steering committee (“JSC”) which is comprised of representatives from both parties. Decisions of the JSC are made by consensus. If the JSC is unable to reach a consensus, and the parties’ executives are not able to resolve the dispute, then Dr. Reddy’s has final decision-making authority, subject to specified limitations (as set forth in the DRL Development Agreement).

Pursuant to the DRL Development Agreement, we received an up-front, nonrefundable payment of $7.5 million in January 2024. Additionally, we are entitled to receive (i) an additional $4.2 million upon acceptance by the FDA of an Investigational New Drug ("IND"), application for COYA 302 for the treatment of ALS and (ii) an additional $4.2 million payment upon the dosing of the first patient in the first phase 2 clinical trial for COYA 302 for the treatment of ALS in the United States. The DRL Development Agreement also calls for up to an aggregate of approximately $40.0 million in development milestones and up to an aggregate of approximately $677.3 million in sales milestones, related to the New Territories, should all such development and sales milestones be achieved. We will also be owed royalties by Dr. Reddy's on Net Sales (as defined in the DRL Development Agreement) of the Product in the low to mid-teens. Pursuant to the First Amendment, as discussed above, the first $6.0 million of royalty payments will not be owed to us.

Both parties shall discuss in good faith and agree in writing on the terms of a commercial supply agreement for the purpose of supply of COYA 302 to Dr. Reddy’s. No such agreement has been entered into at the time of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The DRL Development Agreement expires on a country-by-country basis upon expiration of Dr. Reddy's obligation to make royalty payments for the Product in each territory. Dr. Reddy's has the right to terminate the agreement upon specified prior written notice to us. Additionally, either party may terminate the agreement in the event of an uncured material breach of the agreement by, or insolvency of, the other party. Either party may terminate the agreement in the event that the other party commences a legal action challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of any licensed patent rights.

The foregoing summary of the DRL Development Agreement does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the DRL Development Agreement, which is filed as an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Dr. Reddy's License and Supply Agreement

In March 2023, we entered into an exclusive License and Supply Agreement (the "DRL Supply Agreement") with DRL. The DRL Supply Agreement became effective on April 1, 2023. Pursuant to the terms of the DRL Supply Agreement, we will in-license DRL’s proposed abatacept biosimilar for use in the development of our combination product for neurodegenerative diseases COYA 302. COYA 302 is a dual biologic intended to suppress neuroinflammation via multiple immunomodulatory pathways, for the treatment

of neurodegenerative conditions. The DRL Supply Agreement also provides for the license of our low dose IL-2 ("COYA 301") to DRL to permit the commercialization by DRL of COYA 302 in territories not otherwise granted us. In consideration for the license, we paid a non-refundable upfront fee of $0.4 million. We will pay to DRL up to an aggregate of approximately $2.9 million of pre-approval regulatory milestone payments for the first indication in the Field (as defined in the DRL Supply Agreement), of which an aggregate of $0.2 million has been paid to date, and an additional approximately $20.0 million if all other development, regulatory approval and sales milestones are incurred under the DRL Supply Agreement. We will also pay to DRL a low-six figure milestone payment per additional indication. Further, pursuant to the DRL Supply Agreement, we will pay to DRL single-digit royalties on Net Sales (as defined in the DRL Supply Agreement).

ARScience License Agreement

In August 2022, we entered into a License Agreement (the "ARS License Agreement") with ARS pursuant to which ARS granted us an option to, if we choose to exercise such option, to acquire an exclusive, royalty-bearing license for two patents regarding certain formulations of IL-2 (the product that serves as the basis for COYA 301), with the right to grant sublicenses through multiple tiers under these patents. In consideration for the ARS Option, we paid ARS a one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable option fee of $0.1 million.

On December 1, 2022, we exercised the ARS Option by written notice to ARS, or the Option Exercise Notice. Upon the delivery of the Option Exercise Notice (such date of delivery, the “Effective Date”), ARS automatically was deemed to have granted to us the licenses and all provisions of the ARS License Agreement and the ARS License Agreement became effective as of the Effective Date. Pursuant to the terms of the ARS License Agreement, we paid to ARS a mid-six-figure up-front fee.

COYA US Equity

COYA · 10-K · period ended 2025-12-31

ITEM 1.BUSINESS

COYA US Equity☆

COYA · 10-K · period ended 2025-12-31

ITEM 1.BUSINESS

COYA US Equity