Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Careful consideration should be given to the following material risk factors, in addition to the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in other documents that we file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in evaluating us and our business. Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. If any of the following risks and uncertainties actually occurs, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks described below are not intended to be exhaustive and are not the only risks we face. New risk factors can emerge from time to time, and it is not possible to predict the impact that any factor or combination of factors may have on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
References to XPOVIO® (selinexor) also refer to NEXPOVIO® (selinexor) when discussing its approval and commercialization in certain countries or territories outside of the U.S.
Risks Related to Commercialization and Product Development
Our business is substantially dependent on the commercial success of XPOVIO. If we, either alone or with our collaborators, are unable to successfully commercialize current and future indications of XPOVIO or other products or product candidates on a timely basis, including achieving widespread market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community, our business, financial condition and future profitability will be materially harmed.
Our business and our ability to generate product revenue from the sales of drugs that treat cancer depend heavily on our and our collaborators’ ability to successfully commercialize our lead drug, XPOVIO® (selinexor), on a global basis in currently approved and future indications, and the level of market adoption for, and the continued use of, our products and product candidates, if approved. XPOVIO is currently approved and marketed in the U.S. in multiple hematologic malignancy indications, including in combination with Velcade® (bortezomib) and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma after at least one prior therapy, in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma and as a monotherapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (“DLBCL”). Efforts to drive adoption within the medical community and third-party payors based on the benefits of our products and product candidates require significant resources and may not be successful. The success of XPOVIO and any current or future product candidates, whether alone or in collaboration with third parties, including achieving and maintaining an adequate level of market adoption, depends on several factors, including:
•
our ability to achieve broad adoption of XPOVIO in earlier lines of therapy or to successfully launch and achieve broad adoption of any future XPOVIO indications or any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval;
•
the competitive landscape for our products, including the timing of new competing products entering the market and the level and speed at which these products achieve market acceptance;
•
actual or perceived advantages or disadvantages of our products or product candidates as compared to alternative treatments, including their respective safety, tolerability and efficacy profiles, the potential convenience and ease of administration, access or cost effectiveness;
•
the effectiveness of our sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution strategies and operations;
•
the consistency of any new data we collect and analyses we conduct with prior results, whether they support a favorable safety, efficacy and effectiveness profile of XPOVIO and any potential impact on our U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approvals and/or FDA package insert for XPOVIO and comparable foreign regulatory approvals and package inserts;
•
our ability to comply with the FDA’s and comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ post-marketing requirements and commitments, including through successfully conducting, on a timely basis, additional studies that confirm clinical efficacy, effectiveness and safety of XPOVIO and acceptance of the same by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory bodies;
•
acceptance of current indications of XPOVIO and future indications of XPOVIO and other product candidates, if approved, by patients, the medical community and third-party payors;
•
obtaining and maintaining coverage, adequate pricing and reimbursement by third-party payors, including government payors, for XPOVIO and our product candidates, if approved;
•
the willingness of patients to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of third-party coverage or as co-pay amounts under third-party coverage, for example; multiple myeloma foundation closures during 2023 resulted in significantly increased use of our Patient Assistance Program (“PAP”), which adversely impacted our 2023 revenues;
49
Table of Contents
•
our ability to enforce intellectual property rights in and to our products to prohibit a third-party from marketing a competing product and our ability to avoid third-party patent interference or intellectual property infringement claims;
•
current and future restrictions or limitations on our approved or future indications and patient populations or other adverse regulatory actions;
•
the performance of our manufacturers, license partners, distributors, providers and other business partners, over which we have limited control;
•
any significant misestimations of the size of the market and market potential for any of our products or product candidates;
•
establishing and maintaining commercial manufacturing capabilities or making arrangements with third-party manufacturers;
•
the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies, based, in part, on their perception of our clinical trial data and/or the actual or perceived safety, tolerability and effectiveness profile;
•
maintaining an acceptable safety and tolerability profile of our approved products, including the prevalence and severity of any side effects;
•
the ability to offer our products for sale at competitive prices;
•
adverse publicity about our products or favorable publicity about competitive products;
•
our ability to maintain compliance with existing and new health care laws and regulations, including government pricing, price reporting and other disclosure requirements related to such laws and regulations, and the potential impact of such laws and regulations on physician prescribing practices and payor coverage; and
•
the ability of our sales force to meet with healthcare professionals in person.
If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner, or at all, either on our own or with our collaborators, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize XPOVIO or our product candidates, if approved, which would materially harm our business.
We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing drugs before or more successfully than we do.
The discovery, development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive, particularly in the cancer field. We and our collaborators face competition with respect to XPOVIO and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to discover and develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies as well as public and private research institutions worldwide, many of which have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical studies, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. There are a number of major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell drugs and/or are pursuing the development of drugs for the treatment of cancer and the other disease indications for which we, and our collaborators, are developing our product candidates. Several new novel therapeutics have recently entered, and are expected to continue to enter, the multiple myeloma treatment landscape. For example, TECVAYLITM (teclistamab-cqyv), the first bispecific T-Cell engager, was approved by the FDA in October 2022, followed by approvals of two more bispecifics, ELREXFIOTM (elranatamab-bcmm) and TALVEYTM (talquetamab-tgvs) in August 2023. Other T-cell engaging therapies, bispecifics with different targets, and immunomodulators are in clinical development and may be introduced into the multiple myeloma market in 2024 and beyond. In addition, future label expansions into earlier lines of existing therapies, including CAR-T therapies, are anticipated in 2024 and beyond. The approval of these anti-cancer agents, or any others which may receive regulatory approval, have had a significant impact and may continue to have a significant impact on the therapeutic landscape and our product revenues. See Item 1 under the heading Business - Competition in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information on competition.
We are currently focused on developing and commercializing our products and product candidates for the treatment of cancer and there are a variety of available therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, cancer drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Many of these approved drugs are well-established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic drugs. Our products are priced at a significant premium over
50
Table of Contents
competitive generic drugs, which may make it difficult for us to achieve our business strategy of using our products in combination with existing therapies or replacing existing therapies with our products.
Further, our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are or are perceived to be more effective, safer, more tolerable, more convenient and/or less costly than any of our currently approved products or product candidates or that would render our products obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors may also obtain marketing approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities for their products more rapidly than we, or our collaborators, may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a stronger market position before we, or our collaborators, are able to enter the market or preventing us, or our collaborators, from entering into a particular indication at all.
Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or that may be necessary for, our programs.
If we are not able to compete effectively against current or potential competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.
Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process, with uncertain timelines and outcomes. We or our collaborators may be unable to successfully enroll patients in our ongoing and planned clinical trials in a reasonable timeframe, or at all. In addition, if clinical trials of our product candidates fail to demonstrate safety and effectiveness to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce positive results, we, or our collaborators, may incur additional costs, fail to secure regulatory approvals, or be unable to commercialize such product candidates.
Our long-term success depends in a large part on our ability to continue to successfully develop new indications of selinexor, our product candidates, or any new product candidates we may develop or acquire. Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming, difficult to design, implement and enroll, inherently uncertain as to outcome and can fail at any stage of testing. Furthermore, the failure of any product candidates to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in any clinical trial could negatively impact the perception of selinexor or our other product candidates and/or cause the FDA or other regulatory authorities to require additional testing before any of our product candidates are approved.
We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our or our collaborators’ ability to complete such clinical trials or receive marketing approval of our product candidates, including, but not limited to, the following:
•
delays or failure to reach agreement with regulatory authorities on a trial design or the receipt of feedback requiring us to modify the design of our clinical trials, perform additional or unanticipated clinical trials to obtain approval or alter our regulatory strategy, as is the case in connection with the feedback we received from the FDA in February 2022 on our SIENDO Study;
•
clinical trials of our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results or other patient safety concerns, including undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, and we may decide, or regulatory authorities may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials, suspend ongoing clinical trials or abandon drug development programs, including as a result of a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;
•
enrollment in our clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate, including as a result of competition with other ongoing clinical trials, delays in site activation, newly approved competitive products for the same indications as our product candidates or new or amended regulations; for example, in 2023, site activation for our Phase 3 clinical trial in endometrial cancer was delayed in the EU due to the recent adoption of the In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Regulation (“IVDR”), as discussed further below;
•
regulators may revise the requirements for approving our product candidates, even after providing a positive opinion on or otherwise reviewing and providing comments to a clinical trial protocol, and/or such requirements may not be as we anticipate;
•
delays or failure in obtaining the necessary authorization from regulatory authorities or institutional review boards to permit us, our collaborators or our investigators to commence a clinical trial, conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site, or the suspension or termination of a clinical trial once commenced;
51
Table of Contents
•
delays or failure to reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective clinical trial sites or contract research organizations (“CROs”);
•
the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product candidates may be larger than we anticipate or participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate;
•
our third-party contractors, including manufacturers or CROs, may fail to comply with regulatory requirements, perform effectively, or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all;
•
we or our investigators might be found to be non-compliant with regulatory requirements;
•
the cost of clinical trials of our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate;
•
the supply or quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials may be insufficient or inadequate;
•
for any biomarker driven clinical trial, the potential regulatory requirement to utilize a companion diagnostic, for example the required use of a companion diagnostic for our ongoing study evaluating selinexor in patients with TP53 wild-type advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer;
•
any partners or collaborators that help us conduct clinical trials may face any of the above issues, and may conduct clinical trials in ways they view as advantageous to them but that are suboptimal for us; and
•
negative impacts resulting from a pandemic or other public health emergency, including impacts to healthcare systems and our trial sites’ ability to conduct trial.
If we, or our collaborators, are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates or a companion diagnostic beyond those that we currently contemplate or are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, on a timely basis or at all, and/or if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we, or our collaborators, may:
•
be delayed in obtaining, or not obtain at all, marketing approval for the indication or product candidate;
•
obtain marketing approval in some countries and not in others;
•
obtain approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired;
•
obtain approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings, including boxed warnings;
•
be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements;
•
not receive royalty or milestone revenue under our collaboration agreements for several years, or at all; or
•
have the product removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval.
Further, we do not know whether clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our products, allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do or impair our ability to successfully commercialize our products, which would harm our business and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, clinical trial delays may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.
Serious adverse or unacceptable side effects related to XPOVIO, our product candidates or future products may delay or prevent their regulatory approval, cause us or our collaborators to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, limit the commercial value of approved indications or result in significant negative financial consequences following any marketing approval.
We are currently developing selinexor for the treatment of multiple types of cancer. Its risk of failure is high. If our current or future indications of XPOVIO, any of our product candidates or future products are associated with undesirable side effects or have characteristics that are unexpected in clinical trials or following approval and/or commercialization, we may need to abandon or limit their development or limit marketing to certain uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective.
Adverse events (“AEs”) in our clinical trials for selinexor to date have been generally predictable and typically manageable, including through prophylactic care or dose reductions, although some patients have experienced more serious AEs. The most
52
Table of Contents
common drug-related AEs in our clinical trials for selinexor include fatigue, nausea, anorexia, diarrhea, peripheral neuropathy, upper respiratory tract infection, vomiting, cytopenias, hyponatremia, weight loss, decreased appetite, cataract, dizziness, syncope, depressed level of consciousness, and mental status changes. These side effects were generally mild or moderate in severity. The most common AEs that are Grade 3 or Grade 4, meaning they are more than mild or moderate in severity, include thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, hypophosphatemia, anemia, hyponatremia and neutropenia. To date, the most common AEs in the multiple myeloma patient population have been managed with supportive care and dose modifications. However, a number of patients have withdrawn from our clinical trials as a result of AEs and some patients across our clinical trials have experienced serious AEs deemed by us and the clinical investigator to be related to selinexor. Serious AEs generally refer to AEs that result in death, are life threatening, require hospitalization or prolonging of hospitalization, or cause a significant and permanent disruption of normal life functions, congenital anomalies or birth defects, or require intervention to prevent such an outcome.
The occurrence of AEs in either our clinical trials or following regulatory approval could result in a more restrictive label for any product candidates approved for marketing or could result in the delay or denial of approval to market any product candidates by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which could prevent us from generating sufficient revenue from product sales or ultimately achieving profitability. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial, result in potential product liability claims or cause patients and/or healthcare providers to elect alternative courses of treatment. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. Inadequate training or education of healthcare professionals to recognize or manage the potential side effects of XPOVIO or our product candidates, if approved, could result in increased treatment-related side effects and cause patients to discontinue treatment. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
Results of our trials could reveal an unacceptably high severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated by us or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us or our collaborators to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Many compounds that initially showed promise in early-stage trials for treating cancer or other diseases have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound. If such an event occurs after any of our or our collaborators’ product candidates are approved and/or commercialized, a number of potentially significant negative consequences may result, including:
•
regulatory authorities may withdraw the approval of such drug, require additional warnings on the label or impose distribution or use restrictions and/or require one or more post-marketing studies;
•
patients and/or healthcare providers may elect to utilize other treatment options that have or are perceived to have more tolerable side effects;
•
we may be required to create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients;
•
we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; and
•
our reputation may suffer.
Further, we, our collaborators and our clinical trial investigators, currently determine if serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are drug-related. The FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our, our collaborators’ or our clinical trial investigators’ interpretation of data from clinical trials and the conclusion by us, our collaborators or our clinical trial investigators that a serious adverse effect or unacceptable side effect was not drug-related. The FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may require more information related to the safety of our products or product candidates, including additional preclinical or clinical data to support approval, which may cause us to incur additional expenses, delay or prevent the approval of one of our product candidates, and/or delay or cause us to change our commercialization plans, or we may decide to abandon the development of the product candidate altogether.
In addition, if we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (“FDORA”), Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Similarly, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”), which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. If we are not able to fulfill these new requirements, our ability to conduct clinical trials may be delayed or halted.
53
Table of Contents
Any of these events could prevent us or our collaborators from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate, if approved, or could substantially increase costs and expenses of development or commercialization, which could delay or prevent us from generating sufficient revenue from the sale of our products and harm our business and results of operations.
The results of previous clinical trials may not be predictive of future trial results, and interim or top-line data may be subject to change or qualification based on the complete analyses of data and, therefore, may not be predictive of the final results of a trial.
Clinical failure can occur at any stage of the clinical development process and, therefore, the outcome of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later stage clinical trials. Finalization and cleaning of data from our clinical trials may change the conclusions drawn from uncleaned data provided by our clinical trial investigators. Further, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, starting dose, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the dropout rate among clinical trial participants. We do not know whether any Phase 2, Phase 3 or other clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety data sufficient to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, if approved. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we could face similar setbacks.
We may publicly disclose preliminary, interim or top-line data from our clinical trials. These interim updates are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change as further patient data become available and following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. For example, on February 8, 2022, we announced positive top-line data results for the SIENDO Study. On February 25, 2022, we discussed these data with the FDA in a pre-sNDA meeting. We and the FDA meeting participants had differing views on the statistical significance of the study and the overall clinical benefit for the whole study population. For this study or any other study for which we report preliminary, interim or top-line data, we make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data. We may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data or perform all analyses or our conclusions may differ from those of the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Consequently, the interpretation of preliminary, interim or top-line data results that we report may differ from future interpretations of the same studies once additional data have been received and fully evaluated or based on differing views from regulatory agencies, such as in the SIENDO Study. Preliminary, interim or top-line data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, these early data points should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between previous preliminary or interim data and future interim or final data could significantly harm our business.
In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is typically selected from a more extensive amount of available information. Furthermore, we may report interim analyses of only certain endpoints rather than all endpoints. Investors may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product, product candidate or our business.
If the interim or top-line data that we report differ from future or more comprehensive data, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for and commercialize our product candidates, our business, operating results, prospects, or financial condition may be harmed.
We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional potential product candidates, or our decisions to prioritize the development of certain product candidates over others may later prove wrong.
Part of our strategy involves identifying and developing product candidates to build a pipeline of product candidates. Our drug discovery efforts may not be successful in identifying compounds that are useful in treating cancer or other diseases. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:
•
the research methodology used may not be successful in identifying potential product candidates;
•
potential product candidates may, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be drugs that will receive marketing approval and/or achieve market acceptance; or
•
potential product candidates may not be effective in treating their targeted diseases.
54
Table of Contents
We are currently advancing multiple clinical development studies of selinexor, which may create a strain on our limited human and financial resources. As a result, we may not be able to provide sufficient resources to any single product candidate to permit the successful development and commercialization of such product candidate, which could result in material harm to our business. Further, because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. For example, in January 2024, we announced that further clinical development of our eltanexor program is on hold in an effort to focus our resources on our prioritized late-stage programs. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any additional commercially-viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.
If we are unable to maintain or expand our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing XPOVIO or any of our products or product candidates, if approved, that we may acquire or develop.
We have built a commercial infrastructure in the U.S. for XPOVIO, our first commercial product, in hematological malignancies and our company did not previously have any prior experience in the sales, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical drugs. If XPOVIO or any of our product candidates is approved for additional indications beyond hematological malignancies, such as solid tumors, we may need to evolve our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and we may not be able to do so successfully or on a timely basis. In the future, we may choose to expand our sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure to market or co-promote one or more of our product candidates, if and when they are approved, or enter into additional collaborations with respect to the sale, marketing and distribution of our product candidates. We are working with existing and potential partners to establish the commercial infrastructure to support the sale of selinexor outside of the U.S. For example, we entered into a license agreement with the Menarini Group (“Menarini”) in December 2021, and as amended in March 2023, to, among other things, develop and commercialize NEXPOVIO® (selinexor) for all human oncology indications in Europe (including the United Kingdom (“UK”)), Latin America, certain Middle East and Africa regions and other key countries. For additional risks associated with commercializing our products outside of the U.S., please see the risk factor entitled “We depend on collaborations with third parties for certain aspects of the development, marketing and/or commercialization of XPOVIO and/or our product candidates. If those collaborations are not successful, or if we are not able to maintain our existing collaborations or establish additional collaborations, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans and may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of XPOVIO or our product candidates” below.
There are risks involved with establishing and maintaining our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any commercial launch of a product candidate or negatively impact ongoing commercialization efforts for our approved products. Further, we may underestimate the size of the sales force required for a successful product launch and we may need to expand our sales force earlier and at a higher cost than we anticipated. If the commercial launch of any of our product candidates is delayed or does not occur for any reason, including if we do not receive marketing approval in the timeframe we expect, we may have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.
Factors that may inhibit our efforts to successfully commercialize XPOVIO or any product candidates, if approved, on our own include:
•
existing or new competitors taking share from XPOVIO or any other future product or preventing XPOVIO or any other future product from gaining share in its approved indications;
•
our inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of effective sales, market access, market analytics, operations and marketing personnel;
•
the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe current or future products;
•
the lack of complementary drugs, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive drug lines;
•
unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales, marketing and distribution organization;
•
our inability to obtain sufficient coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors and governmental agencies; and
55
Table of Contents
•
our ability to supply sufficient inventory of our products for commercial sale.
Even if we, or our collaborators, are able to effectively commercialize XPOVIO or any approved products that we may develop or acquire, the products may not receive coverage or may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, all of which would harm our business.
The legislation and regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. As a result, we or our collaborators might obtain marketing approval for a drug in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay the commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we, or our collaborators, are able to generate from product sales in that country. In the U.S., approval and reimbursement decisions are not linked directly, but there is increasing scrutiny from the Congress, regulatory authorities, payers, patients and pathway organizations of the pricing of pharmaceutical products. Adverse pricing limitations may also hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval.
Our, and our collaborators’, ability to successfully commercialize XPOVIO and any other products that we may develop or acquire will depend, in part, on the extent to which reimbursement for these products is available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for XPOVIO and any of our product candidates, if approved, may be difficult. Moreover, the process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for our products. Even with payer coverage, patients may be unwilling or unable to pay the copay required and may choose not to take XPOVIO.
A primary trend in the healthcare industry in the U.S. and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Third-party payors may also seek, with respect to an approved product, additional clinical evidence that goes beyond the data required to obtain marketing approval. They may require such evidence to demonstrate clinical benefits and value in specific patient populations or they may call for costly pharmaceutical studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies before covering our products. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that reimbursement will be or will continue to be available for XPOVIO and any product that we, or our collaborators, commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, we cannot be sure as to the level of reimbursement and whether it will be adequate. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for or the price of XPOVIO or any product candidate for which we, or our collaborators, obtain marketing approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we, or our collaborators, may not be able to successfully commercialize XPOVIO or any other approved products.
There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly-approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the indications for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved drugs that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize our products and our overall financial condition.
Product liability lawsuits against us could divert our resources, cause us to incur substantial liabilities and limit commercialization of XPOVIO or any other products that we may develop or acquire.
We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to our commercialization of XPOVIO and the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials as the administration of our products to humans may expose us to liability claims, whether or not our products are actually at fault for causing any harm or injury. As XPOVIO is used over longer periods of time by a wider group of patients taking numerous other medicines or by patients with additional underlying conditions, the likelihood of adverse drug
56
Table of Contents
reactions or unintended side effects, including death, may increase. For example, we may be sued if any drug we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our products or product candidates caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our products. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:
•
decreased demand for XPOVIO and any other products that we may develop or acquire;
•
injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention;
•
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
•
initiation of investigations by regulators;
•
product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
•
significant costs to defend the related litigation;
•
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
•
loss of revenue;
•
reduced resources of our management to pursue our business strategy; and
•
the inability to successfully commercialize XPOVIO and any other products that we may develop or acquire.
We currently hold clinical trial and general product liability insurance coverage, but that coverage may not be adequate to cover any and all liabilities that we may incur. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.
The business that we or our collaborators conduct outside of the U.S. may be adversely affected by international risks and uncertainties.
Although our operations are primarily based in the U.S., we and our collaborators conduct business outside of the U.S. and expect to continue to do so in the future. For instance, many of the sites at which our clinical trials are being conducted are located outside of the U.S. In addition, we and our collaborators are seeking and continue to plan to seek approvals to sell our and their products in foreign countries. Any business that we, or our collaborators, conduct outside of the U.S. is subject to additional risks that may materially adversely affect our or their ability to conduct business in international markets, including:
•
potentially reduced protection of our intellectual property rights;
•
the potential for so-called parallel importing, which is what happens when a local seller, faced with high or higher local prices, opts to import goods from a foreign market (with low or lower prices) rather than buying them locally;
•
unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers or regulatory requirements;
•
economic weakness, including the uncertainty associated with worldwide economic conditions as a result of inflation, sustained high interest rates, natural disasters and military conflicts, including the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the war between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian group that controls the Gaza Strip, volatility in currency exchange rates, pandemics or other public health emergencies, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets;
•
workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the U.S.;
•
production shortages resulting from any events affecting a product candidate and/or finished drug product supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad;
•
business interruptions resulting from geo-political actions, including war and terrorism, such as the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the war between Israel and Hamas, pandemics or other public health emergencies, climate change or natural disasters, including earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, floods and fires; and
•
failure to comply with Office of Foreign Asset Control rules and regulations and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).
57
Table of Contents
Risks Related to Regulatory Matters
Even if we, or our collaborators, complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, the regulatory approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and we or they may not receive approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our or their product candidates in a timely manner, or at all.
Our long-term success and ability to sustain and grow revenue depends on our and our collaborators’ ability to continue to successfully develop our product candidates and obtain regulatory approval to market our or their products both in and outside of the U.S. In order to market and sell our products in the EU and many other jurisdictions, we and our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, whose laws and regulations may differ from country to country, impose substantial requirements on the development of product candidates to become eligible for marketing approval and have substantial discretion in the process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that the data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical studies, clinical trials or other studies and testing. The time required to obtain approval outside of the U.S. may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. For example, in many countries outside of the U.S., it is required that the drug be approved for reimbursement before the drug can be approved for sale in that country. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside of the U.S. does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in other countries. For additional risks related to conducting business outside of the U.S., please see the risk factor above entitled “The business that we or our collaborators conduct outside of the U.S. may be adversely affected by international risks and uncertainties.”
In addition, the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities retain broad discretion in evaluating the results of our clinical trials and in determining whether the results demonstrate that selinexor or any other product candidate is safe and effective. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials of selinexor or other product candidates prior to approval of additional indications, in earlier lines of therapy or in combination with other drugs, including additional earlier phase clinical trials that may be required prior to commencing any later phase clinical trials, or additional clinical trials following completion of our current and planned later phase clinical trials, we may need substantial additional funds, and there is no assurance that the results of any such additional clinical trials will be sufficient for approval.
The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the U.S. and abroad, is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. It may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information, including manufacturing information, to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application.
The FDA or other regulatory authorities may determine that (i) our product candidates are not safe and effective, only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use; (ii) the dose used in a clinical trial has not been optimized and require us to conduct additional dose optimization studies; or (iii) the comparator arm in a trial is no longer the appropriate comparator due to the evolution of the competitive landscape or subsequent data of the comparator product, even if the FDA or other regulatory authority had previously approved the trial design, and we may be required to amend the trial or we may not receive approval of the indication. For example, the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence has a number of projects to advance the development and regulation of medical products for patients with cancer, such as Project Optimus to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development to emphasize selection of an optimal dose. These projects may require sponsors to spend additional time and resources either pre- or post-approval, and our ability to complete existing trials or initiate new trials may be delayed.
Further, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), an NDA or supplement to an NDA for certain drugs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The law requires the FDA to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. It further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response. The applicable legislation in the EU also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) or to obtain a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by this Committee. For any of our product candidates for which we
58
Table of Contents
or our collaborators are seeking regulatory approval in the U.S. or the EU, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in an issuance and publication of a PREA Non-Compliance letter and associated reputational harm, our product candidate being considered misbranded and subject to relevant enforcement action, invalidation of the marketing application, and/or financial penalties. Our collaborators are also subject to similar requirements outside of the U.S. and the EU and thus the attendant risks and uncertainties.
Finally, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be threatened by ongoing litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Specifically, on April 7, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various measures adopted under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”). In reaching that decision, the district court made a number of findings that numerous representatives of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry believe will chill the development, approval and distribution of new drug products in the U.S. Among other determinations, the district court substituted its scientific judgement for that of the FDA and it held that FDA must provide a special justification for any differences between an approved drug’s labeling and the conditions that existed in the drug’s clinical trials. Further, the district court read the jurisdictional requirements governing litigation in federal court so as to potentially allow virtually any party to bring a lawsuit against the FDA in connection with its decision to approve an NDA or establish requirements under a REMS.
On April 13, 2023, the district court decision was stayed, in part, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Thereafter, on April 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court entered a stay pending disposition of the appeal of the district court decision in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held oral arguments in the case on May 17, 2023 and, on August 16, 2023, issued its decision. The Court of Appeals declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market, finding that a challenge to the FDA’s initial approval in 2000 is barred by the statute of limitations. However, the Court of Appeals did hold that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone that the FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021 were arbitrary and capricious in violation of federal law. On September 8, 2023, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and a manufacturer of mifepristone asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ decision. On December 12, 2023, the Supreme Court announced that it will review the Court of Appeals’ decision. Depending on the outcome of this litigation and the regulatory uncertainty it has engendered, our ability to develop new drug product candidates and to maintain approval of existing drug products and measures adopted under a REMS is at risk and our efforts to develop and market new drug products could be delayed, undermined or subject to protracted litigation.
The approval of our and our collaborators’ current or future product candidates for commercial sale could be delayed, limited or denied or we or they may be required to conduct additional studies for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:
•
regulatory authorities may determine that our or our collaborators’ product candidates do not demonstrate safety and effectiveness in accordance with regulatory agency standards based on a number of considerations, including AEs that are reported during clinical trials;
•
regulatory authorities could analyze and/or interpret data from clinical trials and preclinical testing in different ways than we, or our collaborators, interpret them and determine that our data is insufficient for approval;
•
regulatory authorities may require more information, including additional preclinical or clinical data or trials, to support approval, as in the case of our new trial for selinexor in endometrial cancer following discussions with the FDA in early 2022 on our SIENDO Study;
•
regulatory authorities could determine that our manufacturing processes are not properly designed, are not conducted in accordance with federal or other laws or otherwise not properly managed, and we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for a commercially viable manufacturing process for our product candidates in a timely manner, or at all;
•
the supply or quality of our or our collaborators’ product candidates for our clinical trials may be insufficient, inadequate or delayed;
•
the size of the patient population required to establish the efficacy of our or our collaborators’ product candidates to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies may be larger than we or they anticipated;
•
our failure or the failure of clinical investigational sites and the records kept at the respective locations, including clinical trial data, to be in compliance with the FDA’s current good clinical practices regulations (“GCP”) or comparable regulations outside of the U.S., including the failure to pass inspections of our corporate site or our clinical trial sites;
•
regulatory authorities may change their approval policies or adopt new regulations;
59
Table of Contents
•
regulatory authorities may not be able to undertake reviews, applicable inspections or approval processes in a timely manner;
•
the results of our earlier clinical trials may not be representative of our future, larger trials;
•
regulatory authorities may not agree with our or our collaborators’ regulatory approval strategies or components of our or their regulatory filings, such as the design or implementation of the relevant clinical trials; or
•
a product may not be approved for the indications that we, or our collaborators, request or may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved drug not commercially viable.
Finally, we or our collaborators could face heightened risks with respect to seeking marketing approval in the UK as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. The UK is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2021, the MHRA became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas Northern Ireland will continue to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol. The MHRA will rely on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended) (“HMR”) as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law of the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our or their product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.
Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the UK covering the quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit may have a material impact upon the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, importation, approval and commercialization of our product candidates in the UK. For example, the UK is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide marketing authorization from the EMA, and a separate marketing authorization will be required to market our product candidates in the UK. Until December 31, 2023, it was possible for the MHRA to rely on a decision taken by the European Commission (“EC”) on the approval of a new marketing authorization via the centralized procedure. From January 1, 2024 on, a new international recognition procedure (“IRP”) applies, which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators (“RRs”). The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EU/European Economic Area (“EEA”) member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.
We, or our collaborators, may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our or their products in any market. Any failure, delay or setback in obtaining regulatory approval for our or our collaborators’ product candidates could materially adversely affect our or our collaborators’ ability to generate revenue from a particular product candidate, which could result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price.
We, or our collaborators, may seek approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to use accelerated development pathways for our product candidates. If we, or our collaborators, are not able to use such pathways, we, or they, may be required to conduct additional clinical trials beyond those that are contemplated, which would increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals, if we, or they, receive them at all. In addition, even if an accelerated approval pathway is available to us, or our collaborators, it may not lead to expedited approval of our product candidates, or approval at all.
Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and implementing regulations, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies, upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available
60
Table of Contents
therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. Similar risks to those described above are also applicable to any application that we, or our collaborators, have submitted or may submit in other jurisdictions outside of the U.S. Prior to seeking such accelerated approval, we, or our collaborators, will continue to seek feedback from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies and otherwise evaluate our, or their, ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval.
There can be no assurance that the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies will agree with our, or our collaborators’, surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints in any of our, or their, clinical trials, or that we, or our collaborators, will decide to pursue or submit any additional New Drug Applications (“NDA”) for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that, after feedback from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies, we, or our collaborators, will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Furthermore, for any submission of an application for accelerated approval or application under another expedited regulatory designation, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted for filing or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.
Finally, there can be no assurance that we will satisfy all FDA requirements, including new provisions, that govern accelerated approval. For example, with passage of the FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to (i) require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded; (ii) require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed; and (iii) use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or a Biologic License Application after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval. We will need to fully comply with these and other requirements in connection with the development and approval of any product candidate that qualifies for accelerated approval.
In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The FDA indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. While this guidance is currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, we will need to observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that our products qualify for accelerated approval.
Accordingly, a failure to obtain and maintain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidates, or withdrawal of a product candidate, would result in a longer time period until commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.
XPOVIO and any of our product candidates for which we, or our collaborators, obtain marketing approval in the future are subject to post-marketing regulatory requirements, including following accelerated or conditional approvals of our product candidates, and could be subject to post-marketing restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we, and our collaborators, may be subject to substantial penalties if we, or they, fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we, or they, experience unanticipated problems with our products following approval.
Once marketing approval has been granted, an approved product and its manufacturer and marketer are subject to ongoing review and extensive regulation. XPOVIO and any of our product candidates for which we, or our collaborators, obtain marketing approval in the future, as well as the manufacturing processes, post-approval studies and measures, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such drug, among other things, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other U.S. and foreign regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. For example, as a condition of the XPOVIO approval by the FDA for the multiple myeloma and DLBCL indications, we are required to complete certain post-marketing commitments. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including the requirement to implement a REMS, which could include requirements for a restricted distribution system.
61
Table of Contents
The FDA also imposes requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials to maintain approval of any products that received accelerated or conditional approval. For drugs approved under the FDA’s Accelerated Approval Program, the FDA typically requires post-marketing confirmatory trials to evaluate the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence. For example, in June 2020, the FDA approved XPOVIO to treat DLBCL under the FDA’s accelerated approval regulations and as a condition of the accelerated approval for this indication we are required to comply with a number of post-approval requirements. We may not be able to successfully and timely complete these post-approval requirements or any other post-marketing confirmatory study as required to maintain approval or achieve full approval of our products. If required post-approval studies fail to verify the clinical benefits of our products or confirm that the surrogate marker used for accelerated approval of our products showed an adequate correlation with clinical outcomes, if a sufficient number of participants cannot be enrolled, or if we fail to perform the required post-approval studies with due diligence or on a timely basis, the FDA has the authority to withdraw approval of the drug following a hearing conducted under the FDA’s regulations, which could have a material adverse impact on our business. We cannot be certain of the results of the confirmatory clinical studies for the DLBCL indication or any other future conditional approval we receive or what action the FDA may take if the results of those studies are not as expected based on clinical data that FDA has already reviewed.
Similar risks to those described above are also applicable to any application that we, or our collaborators, have submitted or may submit in other jurisdictions outside of the U.S., including applications submitted to the EMA to support approval of selinexor to treat heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, relapsed or refractory DLBCL, or any other cancer indication. For medicinal products where the benefit of immediate availability outweighs the risk of less comprehensive data than normally required, based on the scope and criteria defined in legislation and guidelines, it is possible to obtain a conditional marketing authorization in the EU with a 12-month validity period and annual renewal pursuant to Regulation No 507/2006. These are granted only if the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) finds that all four of the following requirements are met: (i) the benefit-risk balance of the product is positive; (ii) it is likely that the sponsor will be able to provide comprehensive data; (iii) unmet medical needs will be fulfilled; and (iv) the benefit to public health of the medicinal product’s immediate availability on the market outweighs the risks due to the need for further data.
Once a conditional marketing authorization has been granted, the marketing authorization holder must fulfil specific obligations within defined timelines. These obligations could include completing ongoing or new studies or collecting additional data to confirm the medicine’s benefit-risk balance remains positive. For example, the July 2022 marketing authorization from the EC for NEXPOVIO to treat adult patients with multiple myeloma after at least one prior therapy satisfied the conditional approval obligation for NEXPOVIO for patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least two proteasome inhibitors, two immunomodulatory agents, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, and who have demonstrated disease progression on the last therapy. Conditional marketing authorization is valid for a period of one year and can be renewed/prolonged if the conditions set out in the conditional marketing authorization are met. Further, as discussed above, under FDORA, modifications to regulations governing accelerated approval require a sponsor to have the confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded as well as other requirements following accelerated approval. If we, or our collaborators, are not able to fulfill the specific obligations set out in any conditional marketing authorization requirements, the conditional marketing authorization may not be prolonged and we, or our collaborators, will no longer be able to market the product for the indication receiving conditional approval.
The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also impose requirements for costly surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of an approved drug. The FDA and other U.S. or foreign agencies, including the DOJ, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use, and if we, or our collaborators communicate about any of our product candidates for which we, or they, receive marketing approval in a way that regulators assert goes beyond their approved indications, we, or they, may be subject to warnings or enforcement action for off-label marketing. Alleged violations of the FDCA or other statutes, including the False Claims Act (the “FCA”), relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription drugs may lead to investigations or allegations of violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and state consumer protection laws.
We will need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. In addition, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use.
62
Table of Contents
In addition, manufacturers of approved products and those manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive requirements by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”), which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and reporting requirements. We, our contract manufacturers, our collaborators and their contract manufacturers could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMPs or other regulations.
Post-approval discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or relating to our manufacturing processes, data integrity issues with regulatory filings, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:
•
litigation involving patients taking our drug;
•
restrictions on our manufacturers or manufacturing processes;
•
restrictions on the labeling or marketing of our products;
•
restrictions on the distribution or use of our products;
•
requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials;
•
warning letters or untitled letters;
•
withdrawal, recall or seizure of our products from the market;
•
refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;
•
fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;
•
suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals;
•
damage to relationships with our current or potential collaborators;
•
unfavorable press coverage and damage to our reputation;
•
refusal to permit the import or export of our products; or
•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
Similar restrictions apply to the approval of our products in the EU. The holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include:
•
compliance with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, which can impose post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations;
•
the manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2003/94/EC, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the EC Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice. These requirements include compliance with EU cGMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the EU with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the EU; and
•
the marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the EU notably under Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, and are also subject to EU Member State laws. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is prohibited across the EU.
Finally, we or our collaborators are also subject to other regulations in various jurisdictions, including the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (the “DSCSA”) in the U.S., the Falsified Medicines Directive in the EU and similar laws and regulations in other countries that require us or them to develop electronic systems to serialize, track, trace and authenticate units of our products through the supply chain and distribution system. Compliance with these regulations may result in increased expenses for us or our collaborators or impose greater administrative burdens on our or their organizations, and any failure on our or our collaborators’ part to meet these requirements could result in fines or other penalties or reputational harm.
63
Table of Contents
Accordingly, in connection with our currently approved products and assuming we, or our collaborators, receive marketing approval for one or more of our product candidates, we, and our collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control. If we, and our collaborators, are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, our or our collaborators’ ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition.
If we, or our collaborators, are required by the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory authority to obtain clearance or approval of a companion diagnostic test in connection with approval of any of our product candidates or a group of therapeutic products, and we or they do not obtain or there are delays in obtaining clearance or approval of a diagnostic test, we may not be able to commercialize the product candidate and our ability to generate revenue may be materially impaired.
In connection with our ongoing development of a registration-enabling study of selinexor in patients whose endometrial cancer is TP53 wild-type, we are utilizing a companion diagnostic. To be successful in developing and commercializing product candidates in combination with companion diagnostics, we or our collaborators will need to address a number of scientific, technical, regulatory and logistical challenges. According to FDA guidance, if the FDA determines that a companion diagnostic device is essential to ensuring the safety and effectiveness of a novel therapeutic product or new indication, the FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic product or new therapeutic product indication if the companion diagnostic is not also approved or cleared. In certain circumstances (for example, when a therapeutic product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition for which no satisfactory available therapy exists or when the labelling of an approved product needs to be revised to address a serious safety issue), however, the FDA may approve a therapeutic product without the prior or contemporaneous marketing authorization of a companion diagnostic. In this case, approval of a companion diagnostic may be a post-marketing requirement or commitment.
If the FDA requires clearance or approval of a companion diagnostic for any of our product candidates, whether before, concurrently with approval, or post-approval of the product candidate, we, and/or our collaborators, may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining clearance or approval for these companion diagnostics. The process of obtaining or creating such diagnostic is time consuming and costly. The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to a product candidate to obtain pre-market approval (“PMA”), simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic candidate.
The PMA process, including the gathering of preclinical and clinical data and the submission and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous pre-market review during which the sponsor must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing, and labeling. After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements, including requirements governing development, testing, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, promotion, labeling, import, export, record-keeping, and adverse event reporting. Similar risks to those described above are also applicable to any companion diagnostic that we, or our collaborators, utilize in our clinical trials in connection with approval of a product candidate outside of the U.S. For example, in the EU, until May 25, 2022, in vitro diagnostic medical devices were regulated by Directive 98/79/EC (the “IVDD”), which has been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) No 2017/746 (the “IVDR”). The regulation of companion diagnostics is now subject to further requirements set forth in the IVDR. Companion diagnostics will have to undergo a conformity assessment by a notified body. Before it can issue an EU certificate, the notified body must seek a scientific opinion from the EMA on the suitability of the companion diagnostic to the medicinal product concerned if the medicinal product falls exclusively within the scope of the centralized procedure for the authorization of medicines, or the medicinal product is already authorized through the centralized procedure, or a marketing authorization application for the medicinal product has been submitted through the centralized procedure. As part of the process to obtain a CE-mark for the FMI FoundationOne®CDx for the purpose of determining TP53 wild-type status for use of selinexor in the maintenance treatment of TP53 wild-type endometrial cancer patients, a performance study is required which leverages our global, Phase 3 study evaluating selinexor as a maintenance therapy following systemic therapy in patients with TP53 wild-type advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (the “EC-042 Study”) (e.g., using the unapproved FoundationOne®CDx IVD to screen for TP53 wild-type patients in the EC-042 Study and using the data generated to validate the CDx itself). As the regulations are relatively new, the industry is gaining experience in the compilation of these submissions while the national Competent Authorities and the respective Ethics Committees are also gaining expertise in assessing these applications. As a result, the assessment deadlines of these performance study submissions and amendments are often not met. These new regulations have and could continue to negatively impact the pace of enrollment in our clinical trials. For example, in 2023, site activation for our Phase 3 clinical trial in endometrial cancer was delayed in the EU due to the new IVDR regulations. Consequently, the ability to use the FoundationOne®CDx in vitro diagnostic medical devices to screen patients for TP53 status in the EC-042 Study has been (and continues to be) delayed in various countries in the EU.
64
Table of Contents
We may rely on third parties for the design, development and manufacture of companion diagnostic tests for our product candidates, such as in the case of our ongoing Phase 3 study evaluating selinexor in patients with TP53 wild-type advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. If we enter into such collaborative agreements, we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our future collaborators in developing and obtaining clearance or approval for these companion diagnostics. It may be necessary to resolve issues such as selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation of companion diagnostics during the development and regulatory clearance or approval processes. Moreover, even if data from preclinical studies and early clinical trials appear to support development of a companion diagnostic for a product candidate, data generated in later clinical trials may fail to support the analytical and clinical validation of the companion diagnostic. We and our future collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing, obtaining regulatory clearance or approval for, manufacturing and commercializing companion diagnostics similar to those we face with respect to our product candidates themselves, including issues with achieving regulatory clearance or approval, production of sufficient quantities at commercial scale and with appropriate quality standards, and in gaining market acceptance.
If we are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for our product candidates, or experience delays in doing so, the development of our product candidates may be adversely affected, our product candidates may not obtain marketing approval, and we may not realize the full commercial potential of any of our product candidates that obtain marketing approval. As a result, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially harmed. In addition, a diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic test that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the co-development or commercialization of our companion diagnostic and therapeutic product candidates.
We or our collaborators may seek certain designations for our product candidates in or outside of the U.S., including Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track and Priority Review designations, and PRIME Designation in the EU, but we, or they, might not receive such designations, and even if we, or they, do, such designations may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.
We may seek certain designations for one or more of our product candidates that could expedite review and approval by the FDA. A Breakthrough Therapy product is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For products that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens.
The FDA may also designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective.
We may also seek a Priority Review designation for one or more of our product candidates. If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers major advances in treatment or provides a treatment where no adequate therapy exists, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A Priority Review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months.
These designations are within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for these designations, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. Further, even if we receive a designation, such as the recent receipt of Fast Track designation for selinexor to treat myelofibrosis, the receipt of such designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualifies for these designations, the FDA may later decide that the product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification and rescind the designation or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.
65
Table of Contents
In the EU, we or our collaborators may seek PRIME designation for some of our product candidates in the future. PRIME is a voluntary program aimed at enhancing the EMA’s role to reinforce scientific and regulatory support in order to optimize development and enable accelerated assessment of new medicines that are of major public health interest with the potential to address unmet medical needs. The program focuses on medicines that target conditions for which there exists no satisfactory method of treatment in the EU or even if such a method exists, it may offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments. PRIME is limited to medicines under development and not authorized in the EU and the sponsor intends to apply for an initial MAA through the centralized procedure. To be accepted for PRIME, a product candidate must meet the eligibility criteria with respect to its major public health interest and therapeutic innovation based on information that is capable of substantiating the claims. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a CHMP rapporteur to provide continued support and help to build knowledge ahead of a MAA, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review, meaning reduction in the review time for an opinion on approvability to be issued earlier in the application process. PRIME enables a sponsor to request parallel EMA scientific advice and health technology assessment advice to facilitate timely market access. Even if we or our collaborators receive PRIME designation for any of our product candidates, the designation may not result in a materially faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional EMA procedures. Further, obtaining PRIME designation does not assure or increase the likelihood of the EMA’s grant of a marketing authorization.
We, or our collaborators, may not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for any product candidates we, or they, may develop, and even if we do, that exclusivity may not prevent the FDA or the EMA from approving other competing products.
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition. A similar regulatory scheme governs approval of orphan products by the EMA in the EU. Generally, if a product candidate with an Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA, as applicable, from approving another marketing application for the same product for the same therapeutic indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU. The exclusivity period in the EU can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for Orphan Drug Designation, in particular if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.
In order for the FDA to grant orphan drug exclusivity to one of our products, the agency must find that the product is indicated for the treatment of a condition or disease with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S. The FDA may conclude that the condition or disease for which we seek orphan drug exclusivity does not meet this standard. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, such as the recent receipt of orphan drug exclusivity for selinexor for the treatment of myelofibrosis, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, such as the EMA, can subsequently approve the same product for the same condition if the FDA or such other authorities conclude that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition.
In 2017, the Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (the “FDARA”). The FDARA, among other things, codified the FDA’s pre-existing regulatory interpretation, to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. Under omnibus legislation signed by former President Trump in December 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drugs and biologics that received Orphan Drug Designation before the enactment of the FDARA in 2017, but have not yet been approved or licensed by the FDA.
The FDA and Congress may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021 finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, the FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved.
We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future or whether Congress will take legislative action, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA or Congress may make to orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.
66
Table of Contents
Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies, including from government shut downs, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.
The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us, or any collaborators, to obtain marketing approval and commercialize our or their product candidates, if approved, and affect the prices we, or they, may obtain.
In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our or our collaborators’ product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of any collaborators, to profitably sell or commercialize XPOVIO or any product candidate for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope, our business could be materially harmed.
In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (collectively the “PPACA”). In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Further, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (the “IRA”) in August 2022, Congress extended the expansion of PPACA premium tax credits through 2025.
These and other laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our products or product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product is prescribed or used. For example, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Act’s health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031.
Since enactment of the PPACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”), Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, in December 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the PPACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the PPACA, and therefore because
67
Table of Contents
the mandate was repealed as part of the TCJA, the remaining provisions of the PPACA are invalid as well. In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed this action after finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the PPACA. Litigation and legislation over the PPACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.
The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the PPACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the PPACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the PPACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. In January 2021, however, President Biden issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Executive Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the PPACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the health insurance marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the PPACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.
We expect that these healthcare reforms, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria and new payment methodologies that govern XPOVIO or any other approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering XPOVIO or any other approved product we, or our collaborators, might bring to market. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices we receive or the frequency with which our products are prescribed or administered. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Accordingly, such reforms, if enacted, could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from XPOVIO or from product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop or commercialize product candidates.
The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions are subject to considerable legislative and executive actions and could impact the prices we obtain for our products, if and when licensed.
The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the U.S. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, former President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries’ access to evidence-based care.
In addition, in October 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (the “HHS”) and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the U.S. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”) but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue the HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation.
Further, in November 2020, the HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers. The final rule would also eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the IRA has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.
In July 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The Order directs the HHS to create a plan within 45 days to combat “excessive pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such
68
Table of Contents
pharmaceuticals, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” In September 2021, the HHS released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments.
On August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), 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 (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.
Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least nine years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year.
On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”), Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
Finally, outside of the U.S., in some nations, including those of the EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we, or our collaborators, may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies.
These measures, as well as others adopted in the future, may result in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for XPOVIO or any other approved product we or our collaborators might bring to market. Accordingly, such reforms, if enacted, could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from XPOVIO or from product candidates that we, or our collaborators, may successfully develop and for which we, or they, may obtain marketing approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop or commercialize product candidates.
69
Table of Contents
Our relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payers will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.
Healthcare professionals, including but not limited to physicians, nurses, medical directors, hospitals, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, group purchasing organizations, wholesalers, insurers, and all individuals employed by such entities (collectively, “HCPs”), may influence the recommendation and prescription of our approved products. Our arrangements with HCPs and others who have the ability to influence the recommendation and prescription of our products may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our medicines for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:
•
the federal healthcare anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order, or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;
•
the FCA imposes criminal and civil penalties, including civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment or approval from Medicare, Medicaid or other government payers that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government, with potential liability including mandatory treble damages and significant per-claim penalties;
•
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), as further amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which imposes certain requirements, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization by entities subject to the rule, such as health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and healthcare providers;
•
the federal false statements statute, which prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services;
•
the federal transparency requirements under the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report to the HHS, information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members and applicable group purchasing organizations; and
•
analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payers, including private insurers, and certain state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.
Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other government regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. 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, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Liabilities they incur
70
Table of Contents
pursuant to these laws could result in significant costs or an interruption in operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and other governmental drug pricing programs are complex and may involve subjective decisions. Any failure to comply with those obligations could subject us to penalties and sanctions.
As a condition of reimbursement by various federal and state health insurance programs, we are required to calculate and report certain pricing information to federal and state agencies. The regulations governing the calculations, price reporting and payment obligations are complex and subject to interpretation by various government and regulatory agencies, as well as the courts. Reasonable assumptions have been made where there is lack of regulations or clear guidance and such assumptions involve subjective decisions and estimates. We are required to report any revisions to our calculation, price reporting and payment obligations previously reported or paid. Such revisions could affect our liability to federal and state payers and also adversely impact our reported financial results of operations in the period of such restatement. Further, a number of states have either implemented or are considering implementation of drug price transparency legislation that may prevent or limit our ability to take price increases at certain rates or frequencies. Requirements under such laws include advance notice of planned price increases, reporting price increase amounts and factors considered in taking such increases, wholesale acquisition cost information disclosure to prescribers, purchasers, and state agencies, and new product notice and reporting. Such legislation could limit the price or payment for certain drugs, and a number of states are authorized to impose civil monetary penalties or pursue other enforcement mechanisms against manufacturers for the untimely, inaccurate, or incomplete reporting of drug pricing information or for otherwise failing to comply with drug price transparency requirements. If we are found to have violated state law requirements, we may become subject to significant penalties or other enforcement mechanisms, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Uncertainty exists as new laws, regulations, judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws, or regulations related to our calculations, price reporting or payments obligations increases the chances of a legal challenge, restatement or investigation. If we become subject to investigations, restatements, or other inquiries concerning our compliance with price reporting laws and regulations, we could be required to pay or be subject to additional reimbursements, penalties, sanctions or fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, it is possible that future healthcare reform measures could be adopted, which could result in increased pressure on pricing and reimbursement of our products and thus have an adverse impact on our financial position or business operations.
Further, state Medicaid programs may be slow to invoice pharmaceutical companies for calculated rebates resulting in a lag between the time a sale is recorded and the time the rebate is paid. This results in us having to carry a liability on our consolidated balance sheets for the estimate of rebate claims expected for Medicaid patients. If actual claims are higher than current estimates, our financial position and results of operations could be adversely affected.
In addition to retroactive rebates and the potential for 340B Program refunds, if we are found to have knowingly submitted any false price information related to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to CMS, we may be liable for civil monetary penalties. Such failure could also be grounds for CMS to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, pursuant to which we participate in the Medicaid program. In the event that CMS terminates our rebate agreement, federal payments may not be available under government programs, including Medicaid or Medicare Part B, for our covered outpatient drugs.
Additionally, if we overcharge the government in connection with the Federal Supply Schedule pricing program or Tricare Retail Pharmacy Program, whether due to a misstated Federal Ceiling Price or otherwise, we are required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges can result in allegations against us under the FCA and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and responding to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.
Our collaborators are also subject to similar requirements outside of the U.S. and thus the attendant risks and uncertainties. If our collaborators suffer material and adverse effects from such risks and uncertainties, our rights and benefits for our licensed products could be negatively impacted, which could have a material and adverse impact on our revenues.
71
Table of Contents
We are subject to stringent privacy laws, information security laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security and changes in such laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations, and failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
We are subject to data privacy and protection laws and regulations that apply to the collection, transmission, storage and use of personally-identifying information, which among other things, impose certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of personal information, including comprehensive regulatory systems in the U.S., EU, UK and other countries in which we may conduct business. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve in jurisdictions worldwide, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues with the potential to affect our business. Failure to comply with any of these laws and regulations could result in enforcement action against us, including fines, imprisonment of company officials and public censure, claims for damages by affected individuals, damage to our reputation and loss of goodwill, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.
There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy and security of personal information. In particular, regulations promulgated pursuant to HIPAA establish privacy and security standards that limit the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information, or protected health information, and require the implementation of administrative, physical and technological safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information and ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information. Determining whether protected health information has been handled in compliance with applicable privacy standards and our contractual obligations can be complex and may be subject to changing interpretation.
If we fail to comply with applicable privacy laws, including applicable HIPAA privacy and security standards, we could face civil and criminal penalties. HHS enforcement activity can result in financial liability and reputational harm, and responses to such enforcement activity can consume significant internal resources. In addition, state attorneys general are authorized to bring civil actions seeking either injunctions or damages in response to violations that threaten the privacy of state residents. We cannot be sure how these regulations will be interpreted, enforced or applied to our operations. In addition to the risks associated with enforcement activities and potential contractual liabilities, our ongoing efforts to comply with evolving laws and regulations at the federal and state level may be costly and require ongoing modifications to our policies, procedures and systems.
In addition to potential enforcement by the HHS, we could also be potentially subject to privacy enforcement from the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”). The FTC has been particularly focused on the unpermitted processing of health and genetic data through its recent enforcement actions and is expanding the types of privacy violations that it interprets to be “unfair” under Section 5 of the FTC Act, as well as the types of activities it views to trigger the Health Breach Notification Rule (which the FTC also has the authority to enforce). The agency is also in the process of developing rules related to commercial surveillance and data security. We will need to account for the FTC’s evolving rules and guidance for proper privacy and data security practices in order to mitigate risk for a potential enforcement action, which may be costly.
States are also active in creating specific rules relating to the processing of personal information. In 2018, California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), which took effect on January 1, 2020 and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents. Many of the CCPA’s requirements are similar to those found in the European General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), which is further described below, including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt-out of “sales” of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements.
In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2023 and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the California Privacy Protection Agency – the sole responsibility of which is to enforce the CPRA and other California privacy laws, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities.
In addition to California, eleven other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data, which includes health data in some cases. Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also
72
Table of Contents
states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2024 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2025 and beyond, including New Hampshire and New Jersey. Other states will be considering these laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, Washington state passed a health privacy law in 2023 that will regulate the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data, and more states (such as Vermont) are considering such legislation in 2024. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.
Similar to the laws in the U.S., there are significant privacy and data security laws that apply in Europe and other countries. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the European Economic Area (“EEA”), and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is regulated by the GDPR, which went into effect in May 2018 and which imposes obligations on companies that operate in our industry with respect to the processing of personal data and the cross-border transfer of such data. The GDPR imposes onerous accountability obligations requiring data controllers and processors to maintain a record of their data processing and policies. If our or our partners’ or service providers’ privacy or data security measures fail to comply with the GDPR requirements, we may be subject to litigation, regulatory investigations, enforcement notices requiring us to change the way we use personal data and/or fines of up to 20 million Euros or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the group of companies of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, as well as compensation claims by affected individuals, negative publicity, reputational harm and a potential loss of business and goodwill.
The GDPR places restrictions on the cross-border transfer of personal data from the EU to countries that have not been found by the EC to offer adequate data protection legislation. There are ongoing concerns about the ability of companies to transfer personal data from the EU to other countries. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU (the “CJEU”) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the U.S. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for international transfers of personal data from the EEA. This CJEU decision resulted in increased scrutiny on data transfers and increased our costs of compliance with data privacy legislation as well as our costs of negotiating appropriate privacy and security agreements with our vendors and business partners.
In October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which serves as a replacement to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The EC adopted the adequacy decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the EU to the U.S. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue has the potential to impact our business. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the UK Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. In relation to data transfers, both the UK and the EU have determined, through separate “adequacy” decisions, that data transfers between the two jurisdictions are in compliance with the UK Data Protection Act and the GDPR, respectively. The UK and the U.S. have also agreed to a U.S.-UK “Data Bridge”, which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and provides an additional legal mechanism for companies to transfer data from the UK to the U.S. In addition to the UK, Switzerland is also in the process of approving an adequacy decision in relation to the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (which would function similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the U.S.-UK Data Bridge in relation to data transfers from Switzerland to the U.S.). Any changes or updates to these developments have the potential to impact our business.
Beyond GDPR, there are privacy and data security laws in a growing number of countries around the world. While many loosely follow GDPR as a model, other laws contain different or conflicting provisions. These laws will impact our ability to conduct our business activities, including both our clinical trials and the sale and distribution of commercial products, through increased compliance costs, costs associated with contracting and potential enforcement actions.
While we continue to address the implications of the recent changes to data privacy regulations, data privacy remains an evolving landscape at both the domestic and international level, with new regulations coming into effect and continued legal challenges, and our efforts to comply with the evolving data protection rules may be unsuccessful. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. We must devote significant resources to understanding and complying with this changing landscape. Failure to comply with laws regarding data protection would expose us to risk of enforcement actions taken by data protection authorities in the EEA and elsewhere and carries with it the potential for significant penalties if we are found to be non-compliant. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws in the U.S. regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to penalties under such laws. Any such failure to comply with data protection and privacy laws could result in government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices, claims for damages or
73
Table of Contents
other liabilities, regulatory investigations and enforcement action, litigation and significant costs for remediation, any of which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.
Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, collaborators and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and/or requirements and insider trading, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.
We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, collaborators and vendors. Misconduct by these partners could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or unauthorized activities that violate FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities; provide inaccurate information to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities; fail to comply with manufacturing standards, federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities; fail to comply with state drug pricing transparency filing requirements; fail to report financial information or data accurately; or fail to disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. This could include violations of HIPAA, other U.S. federal and state laws, and requirements of foreign jurisdictions, including the GDPR. We are also exposed to risks in connection with any insider trading violations by employees or others affiliated with us. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee or third-party misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent these activities may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from significant penalties, governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws, standards, regulations, guidance or codes of conduct. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.
If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations and the operations of our third-party vendors also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.