NASDAQ: BMEA

Our mission is to deliver transformative treatments that restore metabolic health. We aim to cure.

OUR PROGRAMS

Our current pipeline

OUR INITIAL FOCUS

Menin and Beta Cell Biology in Diabetes and Other Metabolic Diseases

Diabetes is a chronic metabolic disease that affects the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar levels, leading to elevated glucose in the bloodstream. Over time, uncontrolled blood sugar can result in serious complications, including cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, nerve damage, and vision impairment. People with diabetes often have a reduced life expectancy

5

compared to those without this disease. Diabetes is also a significant economic burden on the U.S. health care system, ranking as the 7th leading cause of death in the U.S. and accounting for approximately one out of every four dollars spent on healthcare in the country. According to a study published in The Lancet, worldwide over 800 million adults are estimated to live with diabetes. The CDC estimates about two in five of the adult population in the U.S. are now expected to develop diabetes during their lifetime. More than 38.4 million people of all ages (about 11% of the U.S. population) have diabetes today, while an additional 97.6 million adults (more than one in three) have pre-diabetes, blood sugars that are higher than normal but not high enough to be classified as diabetes.

Despite the availability of numerous treatment options, there remains a critical need for improved therapies that can modify disease progression rather than simply managing symptoms. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) categorizes diabetes based on etiology and onset. Type 1 diabetes is caused by an autoimmune attack on pancreatic beta cells leading to absolute insulin deficiency, including latent autoimmune diabetes of adulthood. Type 2 diabetes is characterized by progressive beta cell dysfunction and insulin resistance. The primary treatment objective, based on the ADA guidelines, is to achieve glycemic control, typically measured by reductions in HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin), a marker indicating average blood glucose over the past two to three months, to 6.5% or lower. Effective glycemic control is critical in preventing or delaying complications such as kidney disease, heart disease and nerve damage.

The loss of functional beta cell mass is a fundamental driver of disease progression in both type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Beta cells, located in the pancreas, are responsible for producing and secreting insulin, a hormone essential for glucose metabolism and regulation. In diabetes, beta cell dysfunction and depletion lead to impaired insulin secretion, resulting in hyperglycemia. Researchers suggest that menin, a regulatory protein, plays a key role in beta cell proliferation. Inhibiting menin may remove this restriction, allowing for the regeneration and restoration of functional beta cells.

Diabetes progression of type 1 and type 2 driven by beta cell loss

Icovamenib – Our Oral Menin Inhibitor

Icovamenib is an orally bioavailable, and selective, covalent inhibitor of menin being developed in two clinical and multiple preclinical studies, investigating icovamenib’s potential in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, as well as its impact in obesity. Menin is a transcriptional regulator implicated in beta-cell dysfunction, and has been observed to induce transient reductions in menin protein levels in pancreatic islets, thereby modulating pathways associated with insulin secretion and glycemic control. As a potential short course therapy, we believe icovamenib could become an important addition to the diabetes treatment landscape particularly addressing those patients who failed their standard of care therapies.

Dual Potential Mechanism of Action

6

Icovamenib has demonstrated a generally well-tolerated safety profile in preclinical and early-stage clinical studies. Mechanistic studies support two potential modes of action: (i) increasing beta cell mass and function, thereby enhancing insulin synthesis and secretion, and (ii) upregulating GLP-1 receptor expression, which may contribute to improved glycemic control and metabolic benefits.

(i)
Restoration of Beta Cell Quantity and Function

Icovamenib has been observed in preclinical and early-stage clinical studies to increase beta cell quantity and function, addressing a fundamental deficiency in patients with diabetes. Through its proposed mechanism of action, icovamenib has been observed in non-clinical and early-stage clinical studies to promote glucose-regulated beta cell proliferation and enhance insulin synthesis and secretion. Through this targeted restoration of endogenous beta cell quantity and function, icovamenib has the potential to reestablish healthy insulin production and deliver a durable glycemic benefit beyond the treatment period.

(ii)
GLP-1 Receptor Expression

In addition to its observed effects on beta cell mass and function, icovamenib has been shown in preclinical studies to increase expression of the GLP-1 receptor, which may enhance incretin signaling and responsiveness to incretin-based therapies, thereby improving glucose metabolism. The findings from COVALENT-111 are consistent with the proposed mechanism, where patients already receiving a GLP-1 receptor-based therapy and remaining above glycemic targets experienced a reduction in HbA1c following a limited course of icovamenib. Icovamenib was also observed to increase the expression of GLP-1 in enterocyte cells cultured in vitro, suggesting the potential for additional incretin-based mechanisms in regulating blood glucose levels, enhancing appetite suppression and reducing body weight. In preclinical combination studies, icovamenib and a low dose of semaglutide together produced superior glycemic control, greater body weight reduction driven by selective fat loss, and preservation of lean mass compared to semaglutide alone. These findings support the potential for icovamenib to improve GLP-1 receptor activity in both preclinical and clinical settings and may provide benefit to patients who are not achieving treatment goals on GLP-1 therapy alone.

Due to the long half-life of beta cells, icovamenib is not intended as a chronic therapy for insulin deficient diabetes, but rather as a 12-week treatment produced lasting effects beyond the active dosing period.

Icovamenib - Proposed Mechanism of Action

We are currently investigating icovamenib in type 1 and type 2 diabetes through several clinical trials, as described more fully below. Through these trials, we are advancing icovamenib as a potential therapy for diabetes based on its observed ability to improve beta cell health and function. Loss of functional beta cell mass is a core characteristic in both type 1

7

diabetes and type 2 diabetes. In type 1 diabetes, autoimmune destruction leads to nearly complete loss of insulin producing beta cells. In type 2 diabetes, progressive metabolic dysfunction and beta cell exhaustion results in declining insulin secretion over time. Beta cells release insulin, a hormone which is required for glucose regulation, and the decline in beta cell mass leads directly to chronic hyperglycemia and its complications. Menin is understood to regulate beta cell turnover and growth. Controlled inhibition of menin has the potential to restore healthy beta cell populations. Icovamenib is being developed to potentially address this underlying driver of diabetes rather than only managing symptoms.

RECENT DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

Icovamenib - Phase II COVALENT-111 Clinical Results

We have completed the Phase II COVALENT-111 trial evaluating icovamenib in adults with type 2 diabetes. The full 52-week data showed durable and clinically meaningful improvements in glycemic control following a limited twelve-week dosing period. In the severe insulin deficient diabetes population receiving one or more antihyperglycemic agents at baseline, icovamenib achieved a sustained placebo adjusted HbA1c reduction of 1.5% at week 52.

Severe insulin-deficient diabetes patients - 12 weeks of icovamenib dosing

We also plan to evaluate icovamenib in the potential treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who are not achieving glycemic target while receiving GLP-1 RA-based therapy. Data from the COVALENT-111 trial suggest that icovamenib may provide additional glycemic benefit in such patients. In the trial, patients receiving a GLP-1 receptor-based therapy at baseline who remained above glycemic targets achieved additional, clinically meaningful HbA1c improvement following a limited twelve-week course of icovamenib. At week 52, a post-hoc analysis of data from this population demonstrated a placebo adjusted mean HbA1c reduction of 1.8%. These findings are consistent with the mechanistic effects observed in non-clinical combination studies.

8

Post-hoc analysis of patients on a GLP-1 RA-based therapy not achieving target HbA1c <7% at enrollment

Icovamenib - COVALENT-111 Safety Results

Icovamenib was generally well-tolerated across all dosing arms through the 52-week observation period. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported, and no participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events.

In addition, we successfully completed chronic toxicology studies in two species for icovamenib, further strengthening the program’s safety foundation. These studies demonstrated a favorable safety profile consistent with previously reported preclinical and clinical data. To date, more than 400 subjects have been dosed with icovamenib, with results indicating that the compound has been generally well-tolerated.

Icovamenib - COVALENT-121 Food Effect Study

During the fourth quarter of 2025, we completed the COVALENT-121 food-effect study in 60 participants. The study demonstrated that icovamenib achieved optimal pharmacokinetic exposure and maintained a safety profile consistent with prior clinical experience, when administered within 30 minutes after a meal. The results from this study informed dosing instructions intended to support consistent drug exposure in subsequent Phase II clinical studies, including our recently initiated studies, COVALENT-211 and COVALENT-212.

Icovamenib – COVALENT-211 and COVALENT-212 Clinical Studies

During the fourth quarter of 2025, the Company initiated two Phase II clinical studies to evaluate icovamenib in patients with type 2 diabetes. We expect to conduct a readout of the 26-week primary endpoint data in the fourth quarter of 2026.

COVALENT-211 is a Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of icovamenib in participants with type 2 diabetes who are not achieving glycemic targets despite antihyperglycemic medications. The trial is expected to enroll approximately 60 patients. Participants are dosed with icovamenib 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint is mean change in HbA1c from baseline at week 26. Secondary endpoints include mean change in HbA1c from baseline at weeks 12 and 52, mean change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline at week 26 and safety.

COVALENT-212 is a Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of icovamenib in participants with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic targets despite being on a GLP-1 RA-based therapy. The trial design, dosing regimen, and endpoints are similar in structure to COVALENT-211 and are intended to evaluate the efficacy and safety of icovamenib only in this patient population.

Icovamenib - COVALENT-112 Type 1 Diabetes

COVALENT-112 is a multi-site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II trial evaluating icovamenib in healthy adults and adults with type 1 diabetes. The trial’s primary endpoint assesses the mean change from baseline in stimulated C-peptide AUC at Week 26. The former clinical hold imposed in June 2024 and lifted in September 2024, had a profound impact on the COVALENT-112 trial in type 1 diabetes, where over 90% of the targeted patient population was not

9

able to complete dosing due to the clinical hold. We plan to conduct an analysis of patients who completed treatment, the results of which will inform future development decisions for icovamenib in type 1 diabetes, subject to the availability of resources.

BMF-650 – Our Oral, Next-Generation GLP-1 RA

Our other product candidate, BMF-650, is an investigational next-generation, oral, small molecule GLP-1 RA, for the treatment of obesity. GLP-1 is a naturally occurring incretin hormone that plays a vital role in glucose homeostasis and appetite regulation. GLP-1 RAs are a class of medications that bind to and activate GLP-1 receptors, mimicking the effects of native GLP-1. These agents have demonstrated robust clinical efficacy in improving glycemic control, promoting weight loss, and enhancing insulin sensitivity in individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity.

BMF-650 demonstrated positive early preclinical activity, including improved glucose-stimulated insulin secretion, reduction in blood glucose concentration, and appetite suppression in cynomolgus monkeys. Comparative preclinical studies evaluating BMF-650 against a leading oral GLP-1 RA showed that BMF-650 exhibited higher oral bioavailability and a less variable pharmacokinetic profile, which may translate to improved tolerability and support successful dose escalation in clinical development.

In cynomolgus monkey studies, BMF-650 showed robust effects on metabolic function, including significant improvements in glucose control and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion consistent with findings from human donor islet experiments. Appetite suppression studies demonstrated that once daily oral administration of BMF-650 resulted in a clear, dose-dependent reduction in daily food intake and continuous, progressive weight loss over a 28-day treatment period. BMF-650 was well tolerated and maintained a favorable safety profile.

These findings support the potential of BMF-650 as an oral, next-generation GLP-1 RA designed to provide meaningful metabolic benefit while supporting long-term adherence for patients with obesity. Our development strategy with BMF-650 is centered on achieving enhanced oral bioavailability, reduced pharmacokinetic variability, and increased drug exposure overtime to support the development of a potential best-in-class, oral, small molecule GLP-1 RA.

BMF-650 - Phase I Trial GLP-131

BMF-650 is currently being evaluated in an ongoing Phase I GLP-131 clinical trial.

GLP-131 is a Phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single and multiple ascending dose clinical trial designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of BMF-650 in otherwise healthy overweight or obese participants. We expect to announce the initial 28-day weight loss clinical data in the second quarter of 2026. Additional information regarding the trial is available on ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT07223216.

10

OUR STRATEGY

Focused Execution to Advance to Late-Stage Development

We are committed to continue the development of our innovative therapies toward late-stage readiness. We believe we have the operational team in place to clinically advance each of our programs forward into late stage trials.

With our strategic focus to become a diabetes and medicines company, as announced in January 2025, we are concluding our studies exploring icovamenib’s potential in oncology and plan to explore partnerships to further advance our oncology assets (i.e. BMF-500), while concentrating internal resources on metabolic disorders.

Key Strategic Priorities

•
Execute Phase II Development of Icovamenib in Type 2 Diabetes:

Icovamenib, a potentially first-in-class oral, selective, covalent inhibitor of menin, has demonstrated the potential to restore beta cell function and mass, to improve glycemic control. We are prioritizing the development of icovamenib initially in two key patient populations with significant unmet medical need:

•
Severe Insulin Deficient Diabetes Patients: This population is estimated to include approximately 14 million of type 2 diabetes patients across the United States and European Union (EU), and more than 50 million patients in Asian countries. This population of patients exhibit the highest unmet medical need, experiencing high treatment failure rates, rapid progression to insulin-dependency, and poor cardiovascular outcomes. We are initiating a Phase II randomized, double, placebo-controlled clinical trial (COVALENT-211) assessing the efficacy and safety of icovamenib in participants with type 2 diabetes who are not achieving glycemic targets despite antihyperglycemic medications.

•
Patients not Achieving Glycemic Targets on GLP-1 RA-Based Therapies: Clinical and preclinical data support the potential of icovamenib to enhance the activity of GLP-1 RA-based therapies, leading to enhanced insulin production and superior glucose control. We are initiating a Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (COVALENT-212) assessing the efficacy and safety of icovamenib in participants with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic targets despite GLP-1 RA-based therapy.

•
Conclude the Phase I Trial of BMF-650 in Obesity and Advance BMF-650 within the Metabolic Pipeline: BMF-650, our next-generation oral GLP-1 RA candidate, is currently being evaluated in a Phase I trial. With its unique pharmacokinetic properties and encouraging preclinical efficacy profile, BMF-650 has the potential to provide a differentiated oral GLP-1 RA option for obesity and metabolic disease. We expect to announce initial Phase I data in the second quarter of 2026.

•
Evaluate Opportunities to Enhance the Potential of our Programs in Collaboration with Third Parties: We retain full worldwide development and commercialization rights to each of our product candidates. In the future, we may selectively enter into collaborations where we believe there is an opportunity to accelerate clinical development or enhance the potential of our product candidates. We intend to commercialize our product candidates in key markets either alone or with partners to maximize the value of our assets.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by the rapid evolution of technologies and understanding of disease etiology, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We believe that our approach, strategy, scientific capabilities, know-how and experience provide us with competitive advantages. In addition, we believe we are currently the only company in the United States clinically developing irreversible covalent binders specifically against menin. We define ourselves as targeted drug developers focused on irreversible covalent drugs and as such expect substantial competition from multiple sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, and existing or emerging biotechnology companies, academic research institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions worldwide. Many of our competitors, either alone or through collaborations, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

These companies may be or may become interested in discovery and development of irreversible covalent binders that may compete with us against menin or related targets at scale and in an integrated way. Even if they do not advance programs with the same mechanism of action as ours, these companies could develop products or product candidates that are competitive with ours or that have a superior product profile and may do so at a rapid pace. These competitors also compete with us in

11

recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient enrollment in clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do. We face competition from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue the development of therapies that target irreversible covalent binding against protein targets of interest to us.

To our knowledge, there are no clinical-stage programs that aim to specifically regenerate insulin-producing beta cells in the islets by targeting menin for diabetes. There are over 60 approved agents and therapies being utilized to address diabetes. Such approved agents and therapies are intended to provide specific benefits to patients; however, we are not aware of any successfully addressing the root cause of diabetes, a depleted pool of functional beta cells. Several programs are targeting beta cell proliferation, including DYRK1A inhibitors. However, in addition to specific safety challenges, studies have shown that this approach may not only proliferate beta cells but also other pancreatic cells, which would not necessarily improve the ratio of alpha to beta cells in the pancreas.

Our competitors also include companies that are or will be developing other targeted therapies, including small molecule, antibody, or protein degraders for the same indications that we are targeting. For example, the Wegovy® pill was approved in December 2025 and is indicated with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity for adults with obesity, or with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems, to help them lose weight and keep it off. We could see a reduction or elimination in our commercial opportunity if our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient to administer, are less expensive or with more favorable labeling than our product candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their drugs more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their potency, selectivity, inactivation of the target, therapeutic window, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition, our ability to market and commercialize the product candidate, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Intellectual Property

We seek to protect the intellectual property and proprietary technology that we consider important to our business, including by pursuing patent applications that cover our product candidates and methods of using the same, as well as other relevant inventions and improvements that we believe to be commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position. Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain, maintain, enforce and protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights for the technology, inventions and improvements we consider important to our business, and to defend any patents we may own or in-license in the future, prevent others from infringing any patents we may own or in-license in the future, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates and technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our pending provisional and Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, and any patent applications that we might in the future file or license from third parties, may not result in the issuance of patents and any issued patents we may obtain do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology or commercialize our product candidates. The PCT is a treaty with more than 150 contracting states that makes it possible to seek patent protection across multiple states by filing a single “international” application. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in any patents we may own or in-license in the future. Any issued patents that we may own or in-license in the future may be challenged, invalidated, circumvented or have the scope of their claims narrowed. In addition, because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a product candidate we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby limiting the protection such patent would afford the respective product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide.

The term of individual patents depends upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent claiming a new drug product may also be eligible for a limited patent term extension when FDA approval of the new drug product is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The extension period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of a

12

clinical investigation involving human beings began and the submission date of a new drug application (NDA), plus the time between the submission date of a NDA and the ultimate approval date. The extension period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term, including the extension period, must not exceed 14 years following the date of FDA approval. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. A patent that covers multiple products for which extension is sought can be extended only in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA. In the future, if any of our product candidates receive approval by the FDA, we expect to apply for a patent term extension on issued patents covering the product, method of using it, or method for manufacturing it, depending upon the length of the clinical studies for the product and other factors. Outside the U.S., similar applications for patent term extensions or supplementary protection certificates are available in a limited number of countries. We expect to apply for such coverage where available.

There can be no assurance that the USPTO or any other patent office outside the U.S. will approve any of our applications for patent term extensions or supplementary protection certificates. There can be no assurance that patents will issue from our current or future pending patent applications, or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustments to the terms of any patents we may own or in-license in the future. In addition, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. A patent term may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our products, if approved, for an adequate amount of time.

As of December 31, 2025, we owned seven issued U.S. patents, more than 100 U.S. and outside U.S. pending patent applications, directed to compositions of matter, methods of treatment, and methods of making with respect to our product candidates, including icovamenib, BMF-500 and BMF-650.

Patent prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the USPTO or other foreign jurisdiction are often significantly narrowed by the time they issue, if they issue at all. None of our pending PCT patent applications are eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file national stage patent applications within 30 months in the countries in which we seek patent protection. If we do not timely file a national stage patent applications, we may lose our priority date in that country with respect to that PCT patent application and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such PCT patent application. Our provisional patent applications might never result in issued patents and are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a non-provisional and/or PCT patent application within 12 months of filing the related provisional patent application. If we do not timely file non-provisional or PCT patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. While we intend to timely file non-provisional and PCT patent applications relating to our provisional patent applications, and we intend to timely file national stage patent applications relating to our PCT patent applications, we cannot predict whether any of our current or future patent applications related to icovamenib, or any of our other product candidates, will issue as patents. If we do not successfully obtain patent protection, or, even if we do obtain patent protection, if the scope of the patent protection we obtain for our product candidates or technology is not sufficiently broad, we will be unable to prevent others from using our technology or from developing or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours or other competing products and technologies. Additionally, even if any of our patent applications issue as patents, the patents covering our proprietary technologies and our product candidates would be expected to expire between 2039 and 2045.

In addition to patent applications, we rely on unpatented trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to protect. In particular, we consider various aspects of our irreversible binder discovery platform to constitute our trade secrets and know-how. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our collaborators and scientific advisors and non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We cannot guarantee that we have, or that we will have executed such agreements with all applicable employees and contractors, or that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary information rights. In addition, our trade secrets and/or confidential know-how may become known or be independently developed by a third party or misused by any person to whom we disclose such information. These agreements may also be breached, and we may not have an adequate remedy for any such breach. Despite any measures taken to protect our intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products or to obtain or use information that we regard as proprietary. Although we take steps to protect our product candidates and any future proprietary information, third parties may independently develop the same or similar proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. As a result, we might be unable to meaningfully protect our trade secrets and proprietary information.

13

For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks related to our intellectual property.”

License and Partnership Agreements

As of December 31, 2025, we did not have any license or partnership agreements related to any of our programs. As these programs and our business evolve, we may consider entering into a potential license or partnership and may explore partnerships to further advance our oncology assets while concentrating our internal resources on metabolic disorders. A potential partnership could provide non-dilutive funding and access to additional capabilities and expertise that a partner could provide to enhance the overall probability of program success.

Manufacturing

We do not have any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates undergoing preclinical studies, as well as for our clinical trials. This arrangement is also expected for commercial manufacturing if our product candidates receive marketing approval. Certain of our suppliers of ingredients, raw materials, components and materials are single source suppliers. All of our product candidates are small molecules and are manufactured in synthetic processes from available starting materials. We expect to continue to develop product candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.

Commercialization

Subject to receiving marketing approvals, we expect to commence commercialization activities by building a focused sales and marketing organization in the United States to sell our products. We believe that such an organization will be able to address the community of endocrinologists who are the key specialists in treating the patient populations for which our product candidates are being developed. Outside the United States, we expect to enter into distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties for any of our product candidates that obtain marketing approval. We also plan to build a marketing and sales management organization to create and implement marketing strategies for any products that we market through our own sales organization and to oversee and support our sales force. The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved products and establishing relationships with researchers and practitioners in relevant fields of medicine.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, and export and import of drug products. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the (NDA) process before it may be legally marketed in the United States. We, along with any third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our products and product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and its implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•
completion of preclinical laboratory studies, animal studies and formulation studies in accordance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice (GLP) requirements and other applicable regulations;

•
submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually or when certain changes are made;

•
approval by an independent Institutional Review Board (IRB), or ethics committee at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;

14

•
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, good clinical practices (GCPs), and other clinical-trial regulations, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use;

•
preparation of and submission to the FDA of an NDA after completion of all pivotal trials;

•
a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA to file the application for review

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA audit of the preclinical and/or clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA;

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) requirements to ensure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity, and of selected clinical investigation sites to assess compliance with GCPs; and

•
FDA review and approval of the NDA to permit commercial marketing of the product for particular indications for use in the United States.

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, a sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial or imposes a full or partial clinical hold on the IND within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to participants. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

•
Phase I: The product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or participants with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness.

•
Phase II: The product candidate is administered to a limited participant population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and

15

safety risks. Multiple Phase II clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase III clinical trials.

•
Phase III: The product candidate is administered to an expanded participant population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval.

In some cases, the FDA may require, or sponsors may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase IV studies may be conducted after initial marketing approval, and may be used to gain additional experience from the treatment of participants in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, such as for drugs granted accelerated approval, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase IV clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

There also are requirements governing the registration and reporting of ongoing and completed clinical trials to public registries. For example, information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on www.ClinicalTrials.gov, a clinical trials database maintained by the National Institutes of Health. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved. Competitors and patients may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to public notifications of noncompliance, civil monetary penalties, and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

While the IND is active and before approval, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and non-clinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

In addition, during the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase II, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase II trial to discuss Phase II clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase III clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug.

U.S. Review and Approval Process

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once filed, the FDA

16

reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the filing date to complete a standard review of an NDA for a drug that is a new molecular entity. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after it the application is submitted.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates an NDA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter (CRL). An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the NDA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the CRL without first conducting required inspections and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the CRL, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the NDA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of an NDA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use (ETASU), such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the NDA without a REMS, if required. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. The FDA may also require one or more Phase IV post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs and supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, fails to keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA offers a number of expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. For example, the Fast Track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet

17

medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a Fast Track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the product candidate may be eligible for priority review. A Fast Track product may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review portions of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the portions of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept portions of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first portions of the NDA.

A product candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product candidate can receive Breakthrough Therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase I and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers.

Any marketing application for a drug submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product candidate with a Fast Track designation and/or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as rolling review, priority review and accelerated approval. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available alternatives for such disease or condition. For new-molecular-entity NDAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date.

Additionally, product candidates studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period. Under FDORA, the FDA is empowered to take action, such as issuing fines, against companies that fail to conduct with due diligence any post-approval confirmatory study or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress.

Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population of 200,000 or more individuals in the United States and when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the approved used or indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same drug for the same approved used or

18

indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or in instances of drug supply issues. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Among the other potential benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the NDA application user fee.

A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or, as noted above, if a second applicant demonstrates that its product is clinically superior to the approved product with orphan exclusivity or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Post-approval Requirements

Drug products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors and those supplying products, ingredients, and components are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

•
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

•
fines, FDA Form 483s, warning letters, or untitled letters;

•
clinical holds on clinical studies;

•
refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of product approvals;

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

•
consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs;

•
mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information;

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

•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their

19

independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labelling.

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced, passed in Congress and signed into law that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing, and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations, guidances, and policies are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect the manner in which pharmaceutical products are regulated and marketed.

Other United States Regulatory Matters

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

United States Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

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

Regulatory exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated NDA (ANDA), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

The FDCA also provides three years of exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent for other conditions of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

In addition, drugs can also obtain pediatric exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing regulatory exclusivity periods and, for drugs, patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

20

Other Healthcare Laws

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our product candidates, if approved. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

•
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs;

•
federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act (FCA), which can be enforced through civil “qui tam” or “whistleblower” actions, and civil monetary penalty laws, which impose criminal and civil penalties against individuals or entities for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment or approval from Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs that are false or fraudulent; knowingly making or causing a false statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay money to the federal government; or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing such an obligation. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery;

•
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity can be found guilty of violating these statutes without actual knowledge of the statutes or specific intent to violate them in order to have committed a violation;

•
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH), imposes requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure constitutes unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards;

•
the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended (ACA) and its implementing regulations, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to HHS information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other licensed health care practitioners and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members;

21

•
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which went into effect on January 1, 2020, which affords consumers expanded privacy protections. For example, the CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and request deletion of their personal information, opt-out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA also provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that may increase our risk to data breach class action litigation. The CCPA was expanded substantially on January 1, 2023, when the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) became fully operative. The CPRA, among other things, gave California residents the ability to limit use of certain sensitive personal information, further restricted the use of cross-contextual advertising, established restrictions on the retention of personal information, expanded the types of data breaches subject to the CCPA’s private right of action, provided for increased penalties for CPRA violations concerning California residents under the age of 16, and established a new privacy protection agency, now known as CalPrivacy;

•
federal government price reporting laws, which require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs;

•
federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers; and

•
analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state and foreign anti-kickback, false claims, consumer protection and unfair competition laws which may apply to pharmaceutical business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales, and marketing arrangements as well as submitting claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government that otherwise restricts payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws that require drug manufacturers to file reports with states regarding pricing and marketing information, such as the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensations and other remuneration and items of value provided to healthcare professionals and entities; and state and local laws requiring the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services.

Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

•
a covered benefit under its health plan;

•
safe, effective and medically necessary;

•
appropriate for the specific patient;

•
cost-effective; and

•
neither experimental nor investigational.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the U.S. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases on short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any

22

product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales.

Healthcare Reform

In 2010, the ACA was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contained a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and changes to fraud and abuse laws. For example, the ACA:

•
increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1% of the average manufacturer price;

•
required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations;

•
required manufacturers to participate in a coverage gap discount program, under which they must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D (a requirement later replaced under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) by the Medicare Part D manufacturer discount program); and

•
imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs.

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Both the Trump administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and executive measures to control drug costs. In addition, other legislative and regulatory changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted:

•
The U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of two percent per fiscal year that remain in effect through 2031.

•
The U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

•
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. Due to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, estimated budget deficit increases resulting from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and subsequent legislation, Medicare payments to providers were further reduced starting in 2025 absent further legislation.

•
The IRA also includes several provisions that will impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that create a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries, impose new manufacturer financial liability on all drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D pricing for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would require pass through of pharmacy benefit manager rebates to beneficiaries. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have at least one orphan designation and any approved indications are for rare diseases. The implementation of the IRA is currently subject to ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the IRA’s Medicare drug price negotiation program. The effect of IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

•
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBBA) imposed significant reductions in Medicaid funding, additional work requirements for Medicaid recipients, and more frequent reenrollment requirements. These changes are expected to place substantial pressure on state Medicaid budgets, reduce enrollment, and limit covered services, which could decrease utilization of, and reimbursement for, our products, if approved.

The costs of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. To date, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted federal and state legislation

23

designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. The Trump Administration has issued executive orders and supported proposed regulatory initiatives in 2025 that could have a significant impact on the prices that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

On May 12, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of HHS to set and communicate most-favored-nation (MFN) price targets to manufacturers and propose a rulemaking plan to impose MFN pricing if “significant progress” is not made, and also directing the federal government to support regulatory paths to allow direct-to-patient sales for companies that meet these targets. The executive order further states that the Administration will take additional action (for example, examining whether marketing approvals should be modified or rescinded or considering individual drug importation waiver authorities) should manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the MFN lowest price. In July 2025, President Trump sent letters to certain pharmaceutical companies demanding that these companies extend MFN pricing to Medicaid and newly launched drugs as well as move to direct-to-consumer models priced at MFN pricing, and soliciting binding commitments by September 29, 2025. Since this time, multiple drug manufacturers have announced plans to, for certain of their drugs, lower prices to reflect similar pricing around the world, and to sell these reduced-price drugs on a direct-to-consumer purchasing platform developed by the federal government; however, it is not known what results will occur to the extent the recipients of these letters do not reduce their U.S. prices.

On December 19, 2025, CMS released two proposed rules that would incorporate MFN pricing principles into federal reimbursement for prescription drugs. The first proposal, the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing Model (GLOBE) for Medicare Part B, would require manufacturers of specified single source drugs and sole source biologics to pay incremental rebates based on international benchmark prices, with participation triggered for products meeting CMS’s spending and eligibility criteria. The second proposal, the Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (GUARD) model for Medicare Part D, would similarly mandate manufacturer rebates for qualifying sole source drugs where the Medicare net price exceeds an MFN benchmark derived from international reference pricing methodologies. As proposed, GLOBE would begin a five year performance period on October 1, 2026 and GUARD would begin its performance period in 2027. These proposals will likely be subject to legal challenges that could delay their implementation or modify their impact on manufacturer pricing and revenue. Additionally, in November 2025, CMS introduced the GENErating cost Reductions for U.S. Medicaid (GENEROUS) Model, a voluntary MFN framework for manufacturers participating in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Although it is voluntary, the GENEROUS Model could also impact the drug pricing landscape for manufacturers.

Individual states have also been increasingly active 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 health care authorities 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 health care programs. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, particularly in light of the new presidential administration, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services.

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2025, we had 41 full-time employees, 27 of whom were engaged in research and development activities. We believe we have good relationships with our employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards.

Corporate Information

We were established in the state of Delaware in August 2017 as Biomea Fusion, LLC. In December 2020, all outstanding membership interests in Biomea Fusion, LLC were converted into equity interests in the Company.

Our principal executive office is located at 1599 Industrial Road, San Carlos, California 94070, and our telephone number is (650) 980-9099. Our website address is www.biomeafusion.com. We do not incorporate the information on or accessible through our website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and you should not consider any information on, or that can be accessed through, our website a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

24

Biomea Fusion, Inc., the Biomea logo, FUSION™ System and our other registered or common law trademarks, trade names or service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are owned by us. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains references to our trademarks and to trademarks belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, generally appear without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Available Information

Our Annual Reports on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K, proxy and information statements and amendments to reports filed pursuant to Sections 13(a), and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) are filed with the SEC. We are subject to the informational requirements of the Exchange Act and file or furnish reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. Such documents and other information filed by us with the SEC are available free of charge on the “Investors & Media” section of our website when such reports are available on the SEC’s website. The contents of websites referred to above are not incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Further, our references to the URLs for these websites are intended to be inactive textual references only.

25