NASDAQ: IRD

Pipeline

Our pipeline is composed of a portfolio of gene therapies being developed as durable,
one-time treatments designed to address the underlying genetic causes of severe retinal disorders. The pipeline includes seven adeno-associated virus (“AAV”)-based programs, led by OPGx-LCA5 for LCA5-related mutations and OPGx-BEST1 for
BEST1-related retinal degeneration, with additional candidates targeting RHO, CNGB1, RDH12, NMNAT1, and MERTK. We are also advancing Phentolamine Ophthalmic Solution 0.75%, a small-molecule therapy that is FDA-approved for pharmacologically
induced mydriasis, with additional potential indications in presbyopia and low-light visual disturbances following keratorefractive surgery.

Gene Therapy Approach

Retinal degeneration is a devastating cause of severe vision loss beginning in childhood and progressing into adulthood. It is estimated that over 350,000 people in the
U.S., and approximately 4 to 6 million people worldwide are waiting for treatments for their individual genetic conditions, and more than 350 genes are known to cause inherited retinal diseases. Our IRD programs address mutations in genes that
cause different forms of bestrophinopathy, Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) and retinitis pigmentosa (RP), and are based on world-class science from gene therapy pioneers at the University of Pennsylvania (including the lab of Dr. Jean
Bennett), Harvard Medical School, and the University of Florida.

By having multiple assets, we are taking a portfolio approach where we believe we will have advantages in our targeted indications. We conduct a rigorous process for
selection of our clinical programs that is grounded in natural history studies and patient registries, and where there is validation using large animal models. For our chosen indications, we aim to ensure structure-function biology that is
well-characterized with measurable outcomes amenable to gene augmentation. Our treatments are designed to target diseases where the structure is intact to treat the function and reverse the pathology in order to restore or preserve vision.

Because we are targeting rare diseases, we believe regulatory advantages may be available from agencies in the U.S. and other countries. This potential flexibility may
allow for streamlined clinical development and paths to approval allowing us to develop the assets in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Form 10-K

Our treatments are administered via subretinal injection, a proven and reliable delivery method that allows us to directly target the location of disease in the retina.

Gene Therapy Programs

Our gene therapy programs address mutations in genes that cause different forms of Leber congenital amaurosis, bestrophinopathy, and retinitis pigmentosa.

OPGx-LCA5

If approved, our most advanced gene therapy program, OPGx-LCA5 could become the first gene therapy and one-time treatment for
LCA5. The program has received a multi-million-dollar grant from the FDA Office of Orphan Drug Products. The program has also been granted Rare Pediatric Disease, Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT), and Orphan Drug designations
from the FDA. OPGx-LCA5 is potentially eligible for a Priority Review Voucher from the FDA upon approval of a Biologics License Application (BLA).

LCA5 Disease Characteristics

LCA5 is a severe, early-onset form of IRD that accounts for roughly 2% of all LCA cases, or approximately 170 people in the U.S. and 3,260 people worldwide. There are
currently no approved therapies for LCA5-related inherited retinal degeneration, making gene therapy a potentially transformative approach.

The LCA5 gene encodes for the protein lebercilin, a ciliary protein which is critical for bidirectional protein trafficking in photoreceptor inner and outer segments.
Photoreceptors are retinal cells that enable vision by absorbing light and transducing it into an electrochemical signal that is communicated to the visual centers of the brain. Loss of lebercilin disrupts outer segment development, leading to
profound vision loss early in life.

In LCA5, the outer segments do not properly develop, and photoreceptor function is severely impaired. However, studies in patients with this mutation have reported evidence
for the dissociation of retinal architecture and visual function in this disease, suggesting an opportunity for therapeutic intervention through gene augmentation.

Form 10-K

OPGx-LCA5 Mechanism of Action

OPGx-LCA5 is designed to address a form of LCA due to biallelic mutations in the LCA5 gene. OPGx-LCA5 uses an adeno-associated virus 8 (AAV8) vector to precisely deliver a
functional LCA5 gene to photoreceptors in the outer retina to restore structure and function. OPGx-LCA5 is the same promoter technology as used with LUXTURNA®.

Clinical Development Process and Plan

A Phase 1/2 clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania is evaluating the safety and preliminary efficacy of OPGx-LCA5 in patients with IRD due to biallelic mutations
in LCA5. Three adults and three pediatric participants were treated. In addition to safety, outcome measures evaluated include measurement of functional vision using: 1) Visual Acuity; 2) Multi-Luminance orientation and Mobility Test (MLoMT), a
virtual reality mobility course; 3) Full-Field Stimulus Test (FST), which measures the retina’s sensitivity to light; and 4) microperimetry, which measures point-wise sensitivity to light.

In September 2023, we dosed the first adult participant in the trial. Upon review of the data from the first three adult patients, the data safety monitoring board
indicated that there was no observed toxicity, and they recommended an adaptive trial design with data-driven dose escalation. Treatment of three pediatric subjects (13-17 years of age) was initiated in February 2025.

In September 2025, we reported the positive results from the six late-stage participants treated with OPGx-LCA5. The data included 3 adult participants treated out to 18
months and 3 pediatric participants treated out to 3 months. OPGx-LCA5 has been well tolerated by all the participants treated, with no ocular serious adverse events and no dose-limiting toxicities observed in any of the treated participants to
date. All ocular adverse events were mild and were anticipated, and there were no events related to the study drug. One pediatric participant presented with a cataract at screening that worsened at three months, which was deemed related to the
surgical procedure and not to the study drug.

In the study, all six participants experienced improvements in vision, providing evidence of biological activity with the
potential for functional restoration of vision in individuals with advanced disease. The three pediatric participants treated over three months demonstrated large gains in cone-mediated vision with improvements across multiple measures of
visual function. In the three adult participants, responses have been observed out to 18 months, underscoring the potential durability of the treatment response. We are planning to present the Phase 1/2 six-month pediatric cohort data at the
annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) conference in May 2026.

On November 6, 2025, we announced the successful completion of a Type B RMAT meeting with the FDA regarding OPGx-LCA5. The meeting provided constructive feedback from the
FDA on key elements of our registration strategy, including Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC), and the pivotal trial design. The FDA acknowledged the significant unmet medical need for individuals with LCA5-related blindness and
reaffirmed its commitment to regulatory flexibility for rare genetic diseases.

Form 10-K

The Company will incorporate the FDA’s feedback into its updated clinical development and CMC plans to extend the current trial into a Phase 1/2/3 study to include
enrolling as few as 8 participants in a single arm, 12-month study utilizing an adaptive design, which provides flexibility on endpoints and number of participants, reflective of LCA5 as a rare condition with an urgent medical need.

We expect the Phase 3 portion of the trial will include a run-in period prior to dosing to evaluate the natural history of
each participant to serve as their own control in the study. Recruitment is ongoing with multiple participants enrolled to date for ongoing disease monitoring. Following availability of validated clinical drug supply manufactured with the
intended commercial processes, dosing with OPGx-LCA5 is anticipated in the second half of 2026 with topline clinical data expected approximately one year later.

In September 2025, the FDA introduced the Rare Disease Evidence Principles (RDEP) review process to provide greater speed
and predictability in the review of therapies intended to treat rare diseases with very small patient populations with significant unmet medical need and that are driven by a known genetic defect that is the major driver of the
pathophysiology. With a patient population of fewer than 1,000 individuals, we believe that our LCA5 program meets the eligibility criteria for the RDEP process and we are targeting a submission of an application in the first quarter of
2026.

OPGx-BEST1

OPGx-BEST1 is in development for the treatment of BEST1-associated retinal disease, an IRD that can lead to progressive vision loss and legal blindness. Most
bestrophinopathies exhibit a slow rate of decline and central photoreceptors usually remain viable for decades, providing a wide therapeutic window.

BEST1 Disease Characteristics

Best disease, or vitelliform macular dystrophy, is a rare inherited retinal condition caused by mutations in the BEST1 gene, leading to impaired retinal pigment epithelium
(RPE) function, progressive vision loss, and, in some cases, blindness. BEST1 accounts for ~3.5% of all IRDs and affects an estimated 8,400 people in the U.S. and 22,050 people worldwide. The BEST1 gene encodes for production the bestrophin-1
protein, a channel which governs retinal ion and fluid homeostasis. BEST1 IRDs are characterized by retinal lesions, with symptoms including dimness of vision, metamorphosphia (distorted vision), and areas of vision loss or scotoma (blind
spot).

BEST1 has two main phenotypes: Best Vitelliform Macular Dystrophy (BVMD) and Autosomal Recessive Bestrophinopathy (ARB). ARB is a severe, multifocal degeneration beginning
in childhood while BVMD is a type of macular dystrophy. Vision-threatening complications of BVMD and ARB include choroidal neovascularization, retinal detachment, atrophy, and fibrosis, which may lead to irreversible vision loss and progression
to legal blindness.

OPGx-BEST1 Mechanism of Action and Preclinical Development

Form 10-K

OPGx-BEST1 is designed to target BEST1 using the AAV2 capsid to deliver a functional copy of the BEST1 gene to the retina so that bestrophin-1 protein is produced in RPE
cells. This gene therapy approach aims to restore normal function of the RPE cells such that they can provide proper support to photoreceptors, the cells that detect light. We believe that OPGx-BEST1 could provide long-lasting benefit,
potentially for the lifetime of the patient.

In preclinical studies conducted in a naturally occurring canine model of Best Disease, OPGx-BEST1 provided evidence in support of a first-in-man clinical trial. The
safety/efficacy studies in cBEST1 showed regression of lesions and dose-dependent ERG improvement with favorable safety profile supporting clinical dosing.

Clinical Development Process and Plan

In November 2025, we dosed our first participant in our OPGx-BEST1 Phase 1/2 clinical trial, known as BIRD-1, in patients with BVMD or ARB. The trial is an adaptive,
open-label, dose-exploring, safety and tolerability study. Treatment will be administered via a single subretinal injection in one eye of each participant with two dosing cohorts. The trial will also explore biological activity through
functional and anatomical endpoints, including changes in visual function and retinal structure.

In December 2025, we announced that the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) overseeing the trial completed its
pre-specified safety review of the one-month data from the sentinel participant and recommended advancing enrollment and dosing of additional participants in the trial, without modification. Recruitment in the Phase 1/2 study is ongoing at
two clinical sites in the U.S., with three additional sites expected to open. To date, two participants have been treated in the study, representing both dominant and recessive forms of BEST disease, with three-month results from the entire
Cohort 1 expected mid-year 2026.

In February 2026, encouraging data was presented at the Macula Society Annual Meeting detailing results from the first
(sentinel) participant treated with OPGX-BEST1 in the Phase 1/2 study.

This first participant has ARB disease with severe functional impairment. The data demonstrated that OPGx-BEST1 was well
tolerated with no ocular inflammation, no ocular or treatment-related adverse events, and no dose limiting toxicities. Early signals of functional vision improvement were observed, including an equivalent 12-letter gain in Best Corrected Visual
Acuity (BCVA) in the treated study eye. In addition, structural improvement in central subfield thickness (CST) was observed with a 23% decrease in the study eye. Resolution of intraretinal fluid was also seen as early as 1-month in areas with
less atrophy.

We are planning to discuss with the FDA an adaptive Phase 1/2/3 trial design, similar to the design of the OPGx-LCA5 trial, with
potential acceleration to a pivotal study.

Early-Stage Gene Therapy Programs

We also have five programs in pre-clinical development. Three programs are currently in IND-enabling studies, and several have received grant and/or partner funding to
support their development.

OPGx-RHO

Encoded by the RHO gene, rhodopsin is an important component of the photopigment in rod photoreceptors that absorbs light and provides structure to the rod outer segments.
Autosomal dominant mutations in rhodopsin cause RHO-adRP, which is characterized by progressive death of the rod photoreceptors that can lead to vision loss.

OPGx-RHO is a gene therapy that targets autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa caused by RHO mutations (RHO-adRP). RHO-adRP affects approximately 8,800 people in the U.S.,
and 30,580 people worldwide, making it one of the most common IRDs.

OPGx-RHO is designed to preserve the rod photoreceptors by replacing a patient’s mutant RHO gene with a functional copy, addressing the underlying genetic cause of disease.
The program is currently in preclinical development and is being co-funded by the Foundation Fighting Blindness (“FFB”) and the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”).

OPGx-RDH12

Retinal dehydrogenase (RDH12)-associated disease is a severe, early-onset IRD marked by visual acuity loss in early childhood and rapid progression during adolescence.
Patients with RDH12 mutations, which affect approximately 2,500 people in the U.S. and 31,040 people worldwide, often have early visual acuity loss with retinal structural changes by two years of age, and longitudinal studies have reported a
steep decline in visual acuity within the second decade of life. RDH12 encodes a retinol dehydrogenase enzyme involved in the visual cycle, protecting photoreceptors from toxic metabolite accumulation.

Form 10-K

OPGx-RDH12 is designed to restore protein expression and halt functional deterioration in patients with retinal dystrophy caused by mutations in the RDH12 gene. OPGx-RDH12
leverages AAVs to transport a functional gene to photoreceptors in the retina. In preclinical studies of OPGx-RDH12 in cellular and mouse models, we observed evidence of functional improvement of RDH12 activity. The program is currently in
preclinical development and is being co-funded by the Global RDH12 Alliance.

OPGx-MERTK

MERTK-related IRD is a rare, autosomal recessive retinal dystrophy caused by mutations in the MERTK gene, leading to severe,
progressive vision loss. MERTK plays a critical role in phagocytosis of photoreceptor outer segments by RPE cells. Mutations in the MERTK gene impair the retina’s ability to recycle photoreceptor components causing a rod-cone dystrophy with
early macular atrophy, with retinitis pigmentosa being the most common phenotype. MERTK affects approximately 2,600 people in the U.S. and 22,000 people worldwide. There are currently no approved treatments for MERTK-related retinitis
pigmentosa.

OPGx-MERTK is being developed for retinal degeneration caused by mutations in the MERTK gene. The therapy is designed to deliver a functional copy of the MERTK gene to
retinal cells. We are advancing OPGx-MERTK using a modern AAV vector design, building on prior preclinical proof of concept and earlier clinical experience, with the aim of improving durability and efficacy. OPGx-MERTK is being co-funded by the
FFB Retinal Degeneration Fund.

In January 2026, we announced the launch and funding of a clinical trial for OPGx-MERTK in Abu Dhabi in collaboration with the Department of Health – Abu Dhabi (DoH), the
Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, the Innovative Research Oversight and Support (IROS) division of the M42 group, and the Authority of Social Contribution – Ma’an. Clinical development activities are expected to commence at Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi
in 2026.

OPGx-NMNAT1

NMNAT1 is an enzyme essential for regenerating an essential metabolite, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+), in cell nuclei. Photoreceptors, in particular, are highly
vulnerable to loss of NMNAT1 function.

OPGx-NMNAT1 is a gene augmentation therapy designed to halt functional deterioration
in pediatric patients with retinal degenerative disease caused by mutations in the nicotinamide mononucleotide adenylyltransferase 1 (NMNAT1) gene, which affects approximately 1,200 people in the U.S. and 5,290 people worldwide. Preclinical
data in a mouse model that recapitulate key features of the human disease demonstrated that AAV-mediated delivery of NMNAT1 stabilized retinal degeneration. The program is currently in preclinical development.

OPGx-CNGB1

CNGB1-related eye disease is an autosomal recessive form of retinitis pigmentosa caused by mutations in the CNGB1 gene, which encodes a subunit of the rod photoreceptor
cyclic nucleotide-gated (CNG) ion channel. It typically presents with childhood-onset night blindness, slowly progressive visual field loss, and relatively preserved central visual acuity until later stages. CNGB1 affects approximately 2,100
people in the U.S. and 10,150 people worldwide.

OPGx-CNGB1 is an AAV gene therapy being developed for retinitis pigmentosa due to mutations in the CNGB1 gene.

Phentolamine Ophthalmic Solution 0.75% (PS)

In addition to gene therapies, our pipeline includes Phentolamine Ophthalmic Solution 0.75%, a small-molecular,
preservative-free ophthalmic therapy being developed to address multiple common and underserved vision conditions. PS is FDA-approved for pharmacologically induced mydriasis. Our objective with our clinical development programs for PS is to
provide a safe, long-lasting and effective solution that restores near vision and enhances overall visual performance for people with presbyopia and low-light visual disturbances following keratorefractive surgery. To date, PS has shown a
favorable tolerability profile with minimal to no headaches or dimming, and no drug-related increase in risk of retinal detachment, retinal tears, or vitreofoveal traction.

Form 10-K

License and Collaboration

In November 2022, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement (the “Viatris License Agreement”) with a company now known as Viatris, Inc. (“Viatris”), pursuant to
which we granted Viatris an exclusive license to intellectual property used to develop, manufacture, import, export and commercialize worldwide, except for certain countries and jurisdictions in Asia (i) our refractive product candidate PS, and
(ii) PS with low dose pilocarpine for treating presbyopia.

The license rights for PS include three potential indications (a) reversal of pharmacologically-induced mydriasis, (b) presbyopia, and (c) decreased vision under mesopic
(low) light conditions after keratorefractive surgery.

Mechanism of Action

PS is a once-daily sterile eye drop formulation of phentolamine mesylate designed to reduce pupil diameter and improve visual acuity. The active pharmaceutical ingredient
of PS, phentolamine mesylate, is a relatively non-selective alpha-1 and alpha-2 adrenergic antagonist that inhibits activation of the smooth muscle of the iris, reducing pupil diameter.

It works by blocking alpha-1 and receptors found on the radial iris dilator muscle, which are activated by the alpha-1 adrenergic receptors. PS is designed to reduce pupil
diameter through a sympatholytic mechanism of action that avoids engaging the ciliary muscle, potentially reducing risks such as retinal tears or detachment associated with older parasympathomimetic agents. This differentiated mechanism allows
potential improvement in visual performance while preserving distance vision, accommodation, and contrast sensitivity.

For the treatment of pharmacologically-induced mydriasis, PS, either by directly antagonizing the alpha-1 agonist or by indirectly antagonizing the pupil dilation effect of
muscarinic blocking, may expedite the reversal of mydriasis prior to natural reversal. For presbyopic patients, we believe that it is possible to reach a target 2 mm to 3 mm optimal pupil diameter by relaxing the dilator iris muscle with PS and
contracting the iris sphincter muscle with a muscarinic agonist such as low dose pilocarpine. Lastly, for the dim light vision disturbances, it is proposed that a moderate miotic effect by application of PS might mitigate night vision
difficulties, a large portion of which are caused by imperfections or aberrations present in the periphery of the cornea.

Form 10-K

Pupillary Mechanism:

Clinical Development Process and Plan

PS has been assessed in 14 investigator-initiated and company-sponsored Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials. Across all these trials, over 1,200 adult subjects
have been exposed to at least one dose of phentolamine ophthalmic solution 0.75%. Clinical trial data from Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials have been presented at meetings of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), Association for Research in
Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), and American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and may be presented at future medical conferences.

Pharmacologically Induced Mydriasis: RYZUMVI® (phentolamine ophthalmic solution) 0.75%

Pharmacologically induced mydriasis is the artificial dilation of the pupils caused by chemical substances, such as eye drops or medications, rather than natural light
changes. These substances work by blocking parasympathetic signals that constrict the pupil or stimulating sympathetic pathways that dilate it, resulting in pupils that are often fixed, unresponsive to light, and sometimes cause blurry vision.
There are approximately 100 million eye dilations in the United States performed annually.

In September 2023, PS was approved by the FDA for the treatment of pharmacologically
induced mydriasis produced by adrenergic agonists (e.g., phenylephrine) or parasympatholytic agents (e.g., tropicamide), or a combination thereof, under the brand name RYZUMVI® which triggered a $10 million milestone payment under the Viatris
License Agreement. RYZUMVI® was commercially launched by Viatris in April 2024.

Presbyopia: VEGA Program

Presbyopia is an ophthalmic disorder that involves the progressive loss of ability to focus on close objects that typically becomes noticeable in the early to mid-40s. As
the eye ages, the ability to focus for reading and other tasks that require clear vision at near distances decreases. Presbyopia patients experience blurred near vision, difficulty seeing in dim light and eye strain. This ubiquitous condition
leads to the widespread use of reading glasses or bifocals. It is estimated that 128 million Americans, and approximately 2 billion people worldwide, have presbyopia, and this number is expected to grow as the population ages. PS is being
developed as a non-invasive, once-daily alternative to reading glasses or multifocal lenses. The program has completed two pivotal Phase 3 trials.

In June 2021, we announced positive results from VEGA-1, our Phase 2 trial evaluating PS for the treatment of presbyopia. VEGA-1 (NYXP-201) was a double-masked, randomized,
placebo-controlled, multi-center trial of PS and LDP compared with vehicle (placebo) ophthalmic solution in presbyopic patients. A total of 150 patients were randomized 4:3:3:4 to one of four treatment groups. The primary efficacy endpoint for
this study was met.

Form 10-K

In November 2023, we announced positive results from VEGA-2, our first Phase 3 trial evaluating PS for the treatment of presbyopia. VEGA-2 (NYXP-301) is a double-masked,
randomized, placebo-controlled multi-center trial of PS, placebo and with adjunctive LDP compared with vehicle (placebo) in presbyopic patients. 333 subjects were randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of four treatment groups in two stages. The primary
efficacy endpoint was met.

In June 2025, we announced positive topline results from VEGA-3, our second pivotal Phase 3 trial evaluating PS for the treatment of presbyopia. The study met its primary
and key secondary endpoints, demonstrating rapid and sustained improvement in near visual acuity with a favorable safety profile and no evidence of tachyphylaxis over six weeks.

VEGA-3 was a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study that enrolled 569 participants across 36 sites in the United States. Subjects were
randomized in a 3:2 ratio to receive either PS or placebo, administered once daily in the evening. The VEGA-3 trial met its primary endpoint, with a statistically significant 27.2% of participants treated with PS achieving a ≥15-letter
improvement in binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), with less than a 5-letter loss in binocular best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) at 12 hours post-dose on Day 8, compared to 11.5% of patients on placebo
(p<0.0001). The trial also met key secondary efficacy endpoints, reinforcing the benefit observed.

Based on positive results from both Phase 3 studies, Viatris, the Company’s global commercialization partner for PS, filed a supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) with
the FDA in December 2025. In February 2026, the FDA accepted the sNDA and set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) action date of October 17, 2026.

Decreased Vision Under Dim (Mesopic or Low) Light Conditions After Keratorefractive Surgery: LYNX Program

Phentolamine Ophthalmic Solution 0.75% is also being developed for visual disturbances under mesopic, or low-light conditions following keratorefractive surgery, including
Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK), Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK), Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) and Radial Keratotomy (RK). These patients may experience glare, halos, starbursts, and impaired night driving, and
there are currently no FDA-approved treatments. There are an estimated 600,000 to 700,000 laser vision correction procedures conducted every year in the U.S., of these, 35% of LASIK patients report dim light disturbances post treatment.

In December 2023, we entered into an agreement under a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) with the FDA for PS for decreased vision under dim (mesopic or low) light
conditions following keratorefractive surgery. We have also received Fast Track designation from the FDA in this indication.

LYNX-1 (NYXDLD-301) was a Phase 3 double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center study comparing PS to placebo ophthalmic solution in 145 patients experiencing
dim light vision disturbances at multiple sites across the U.S. Treatment was self-administered in each eye once daily at or near bedtime for 14 days. PS met the primary endpoint, showing a statistically significant higher percentage of
subjects with ≥ 15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (≥ 3 lines) of improvement compared to baseline in monocular mLCVA at Day 8. A total of 66 Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (“TEAEs”) were reported in 23 subjects
(32%) treated with PS and 22 TEAEs were reported in 12 subjects (16%) treated with placebo. All TEAEs were mild or moderate in intensity, except for one severe TEAE (instillation site pain) experienced by a subject in the PS group. No subjects
had any TEAEs leading to withdrawal from the study. One subject in each treatment group (PS and placebo) had TEAEs leading to study medication discontinuation.

In June 2025, we announced positive topline results from LYNX-2, our first pivotal Phase 3 trial evaluating PS for the treatment of significant, chronic night driving
impairment in keratorefractive patients with reduced mesopic vision. The LYNX-2 study met its primary endpoint of a gain of three lines (or 15 letters) or more of distance vision improvement on a low contrast chart in low light conditions after
15 days of dosing. In the study, 17.3% of patients treated with Phentolamine Ophthalmic Solution 0.75% achieved a ≥15-letter Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) (≥ 3-line) improvement in Mesopic Low Contrast Distance Visual
Acuity (mLCVA) at Day 15, compared to 9.2% in the placebo group (p<0.05).

Form 10-K

In September 2025, we announced that the first patient was dosed in LYNX-3, our
second pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating PS for the treatment of significant, chronic night driving impairment in keratorefractive patients with reduced mesopic vision. Topline results from LYNX-3 are expected in the first half of
2026.

APX3330

Mechanism of Action

APX3330 is a selective small molecule that is designed to act on the dual-functioning Apurinic/Apyrimidinic Endonuclease 1/Redox Effector Factor-1 (APE1/Ref-1) protein,
referred to as Ref-1. This protein is implicated in both redox signaling and DNA repair. Because APX3330 selectively inhibits the redox function without affecting the molecule’s ability to carry out DNA repair, normal cell function is left
intact. Moreover, interference of Ref-1 activity with APX3330 blocks angiogenesis and inflammation by simultaneously decreasing the activity of several important transcription factors such as HIF-1α and NF-κB (see the below figure for a visual
description). HIF-1α regulates the expression of VEGF, a protein that is paramount for angiogenesis, and NF-κB is an upstream regulator of proteins involved in inflammatory processes such as TNFα and chemokines.

APX3330 has a dual mechanism that decreases both abnormal angiogenesis and inflammation. APX3330 blocks pathways downstream of Ref-1. Blocking HIF-1α reduces VEGF
signaling, and blocking NF-κB modulates VEGF, TNF-α and other inflammatory cytokine production. In contrast, anti-VEGF agents solely inhibit the actions of VEGF.

Clinical Development Process and Plan

APX3330 has been studied in over 375 healthy volunteers or patients with hepatitis or cancer or diabetic retinopathy (DR).

In August 2022 we completed ZETA-1, a Phase 2b double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial in 103 patients with DR and diabetic macular edema (DME).
This study evaluated the effect of 600 mg daily dose of APX3330 in treating patients with DR, including moderately severe Nonproliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (NPDR) to mild Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR), as well as patients with
DME without loss of central vision. The primary endpoint was percent of patients with a ≥2 step improvement in Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) diabetic retinopathy severity scale (DRSS) at week 24 in the study eye. The
ZETA-1 trial did not meet the primary endpoint in the study eye; however, the trial provided evidence of the potential for clinically meaningful prevention of progression of diabetic retinopathy when evaluating both eyes. In the ZETA-1 trial,
13% of subjects within the placebo arm compared to 5% of subjects within the APX3330 arm worsened by ≥ 3 step on binocular person-level scale from baseline at week 24. Additional efficacy endpoints were directionally supportive of the
biological effect of APX3330 in slowing the progression of DR and preserving vision.

In the first half of 2024, we conducted a subset analysis for ZETA-1 to evaluate the efficacy of APX3330 in slowing DR progression using the FDA’s agreed upon registration
endpoint of a 3-step change on a binocular diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS). This 17-step person-level scale accounts for the DRSS scores of the two eyes and then anchors the step to the worse eye. The subset comprised 68 participants
from the ZETA-1 trial who had a baseline DRSS score of 47 or 53 in at least one eye and 43, 47 or 53 in the other eye. Analysis of the ZETA-1 Phase 2 subset using the binocular person-level scale showed that no participants in the APX3330 group
had a ≥ 4-step worsening at week 24 compared to 15.2% in the placebo group, representing a 100% reduction between groups (p=0.07). Similarly, only 5.7% of APX3330-treated subjects had a ≥ 3-step worsening at week 24 compared to 15.2% of placebo
subjects, representing a 62.5% reduction between groups (p=0.26). Fewer participants in the APX3330 group developed proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) by week 24 compared to the placebo group (11% vs 26% respectively; p=0.13).

Overall, there were 211 adverse events (“AEs”) in 64 subjects, with only 31 of these AEs considered drug-related (14 APX3330, 17 placebo). All treatment-related AEs were
mild or moderate in severity. There were no adverse treatment effects on any other characteristics of the ophthalmic examination or on any assessments of systemic safety.

Form 10-K

In October 2023, we conducted an EOP2 meeting with the FDA and shared the outcome of the meeting in October 2023 which stated the agreement on the
registrational program for APX3330, including confirmation of the primary endpoint for registration of a systemic agent for DR. In December 2024, the Company reached agreement with the FDA under SPA related to a Phase 3 clinical trial design.
However, due to our current strategic focus on advancing our gene therapy candidates, we are seeking a strategic partner to advance the clinical development of this late-stage diabetic retinopathy program

Overview of Eye Disease Market

Inherited Retinal Disease Market

Retinal degeneration is a devastating cause of severe vision loss beginning in childhood and progressing into adulthood. There are more than 350 genes known to cause
inherited retinal diseases. Only one of these, RPE65, has an approved treatment, LUXTURNA®. Many of the mutations attributable to IRDs may be amenable to gene augmentation therapy using an established, standardized subretinal delivery method.
Our pipeline addresses seven of these mutations with variable prevalence as a potential one-time treatment.

The prevalence of IRDs varies widely across regions, creating significant opportunities for therapeutic development in both
U.S. and ex‑U.S. markets. The IRD prevalence estimates highlight the distribution of genetically defined patient populations by region and gene, underscoring the breadth of our addressable market.

Form 10-K

Anterior (Front of the Eye) Segment Disease Market

There are approximately 100 million eye dilations in the United States and this number is expected to go up with the increasing aging and diabetic population that requires
more frequent eye exams and procedures. Millions of Americans also suffer from various refractive errors in addition to an age-related loss in accommodation known as presbyopia.

Presbyopia is common in patients over the age of 40 years, which results in decreased ability to see objects at near distances due to a loss of accommodative function. This
condition affects nearly 133 million Americans and usually requires reading glasses, bifocals/varifocals, contact lenses or surgical refractive treatment to enable clear vision at near distances.

Further, according to GlobalData, approximately 38 million patients in the U.S. suffer from dim light or night vision disturbances caused by LASIK, night myopia,
keratoconus, eye surgery, or the natural aging process. There is also a global trend in vision disturbances in younger individuals due to the overuse of smartphone screens. There are 600,000 to 700,000 laser vision correction procedures
conducted every year in the U.S., of these, 35% of LASIK patients report dim light disturbances post treatment.

Sales and Marketing

In November 2022, we entered into the Viatris License Agreement for the development and commercialization of all PS indications in the U.S. and ex-U.S. markets (excluding
certain countries in Asia). Viatris is responsible for any commercialization activities associated with any approved PS indications.

Currently, we do not have any employees dedicated to the sales and marketing of any of our pipeline products. We may look to build our own sales and marketing
infrastructure or pursue a partnership to commercialize any future drugs upon approval.

Manufacturing

We contract with manufacturers to produce drug substances (chemical and biologic), gene therapies drug products, and formulated drug products for use in our preclinical
studies and clinical trials, utilizing reliable and reproducible processes and common manufacturing techniques which are consistent with applicable regulations for the intended use. Gene therapy drug products, Master Cell Banks, and plasmids
are located at a contracted biorepository for long term storage, or the manufacturing site prior to relocation for storage. Contracts for ongoing stability storage and testing are established for current clinical inventory of drug substances,
gene therapies, and drug products. We do not have any long-term manufacturing agreements but do intend to secure such arrangements for drug substances, gene therapies, or drug products in the event any of our products being developed become
commercialized. We do not currently own or operate, and we have no current plans to establish any manufacturing facilities.

OPGx-LCA5

The manufacturing of current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) -grade OPGx-LCA5 drug substance and drug product for nonclinical toxicology and clinical studies was
performed at an academic manufacturing partner, using an adherent process, with in-house and outsourced testing. The current batch size is 50 liters.

The technical transfer of the manufacturing process for drug substance and drug product to a cGMP commercial contract drug manufacturing organization (“CDMO”), SAFC
Carlsbad Inc., is ongoing. The new process includes a suspension process at 50L scale including analytical support, for pivotal Phase 3 clinical and pre-commercial readiness and Product Process Qualification (PPQ).

Form 10-K

OPGx-BEST1

Manufacturing of cGMP-grade OPGx-BEST1 drug substance and drug product for BEST1 nonclinical toxicology and clinical studies was performed at Catalent Incorporated, with
in-house and outsourced testing. Process and analytical development work for OPGx-BEST1 were conducted at small scale. Following scale-up, replicate batches were produced at 200L scale, using the same process used for the Good Laboratory
Practice (“GLP”) toxicology studies. Batches of drug product, drug substance, and diluent were placed on stability programs which remain ongoing.

The technical transfer of the manufacturing process for drug substance and drug product to a cGMP CDMO, SAFC Carlsbad Inc., is ongoing. The new process includes a
suspension process at 200L scale including analytical support, for pivotal Phase 3 clinical and pre-commercial readiness and PPQ.

Early-Stage Gene Therapy Assets

The remaining IRD pipeline, including OPGx-RHO, OPGx-RDH12, OPGx-MERTK, OPGx-NMNAT1, and OPGx-CNGB1, are pre-clinical candidates in varying stages of phase appropriate
development, based on the asset. Manufacturing completed to date has been conducted to support non-clinical toxicology programs, at a scale of 50L or less, with planning to support technical transfer and scale-up ongoing. There are no current
or ongoing manufacturing agreements in place. A request for proposal process, to include small scale process development, technical transfer, and analytical method development, to identify a manufacturing partner is being conducted. The
overall corporate strategy is to advance each from the current manufacturing status, from pre-clinical into clinical Phase 1/2 readiness consolidated with a CDMO meeting capability requirements under cGMP manufacturing conditions.

Phentolamine Ophthalmic Solution 0.75% (PS)

Pursuant to the Viatris License Agreement, we have transferred commercial manufacturing
responsibilities for RYZUMVI® to Viatris. Transfer of commercial manufacturing responsibilities for additional indications for which PS is in development is intended. Currently, we use purchase orders with multiple manufacturers for PS
clinical supply manufacturing. We are qualifying our selected manufacturers to provide bulk drug substances and drug products in conjunction with the planned sNDA regulatory submissions to the FDA.

APX3330

APX3330 is a solid oral formulation of a small molecule drug substance that is synthesized from readily available raw materials and using conventional chemical processes.
The APX3330 drug substance has been optimized to a new form. Process and analytical development of APX3330 drug substance and drug product is in development, and plans for production scale up according to cGMP regulatory requirements are
established. Previously, the APX3330 drug product manufacturer performed pharmaceutical development to support the cGMP manufacturing campaign for tablets of 60 mg and 120 mg dose strengths, the latter being used in prior clinical trials. We
have reformulated the drug product and increased the dose strength to 300 mg for convenient once or twice a day dosing and completed one human bioavailability trial with the new formulation to demonstrate comparability with the prior
investigational product. Planning to complete the remaining process development, scale up, and validation are established, pending execution following a partnership agreement.

Collaborations and Licenses

Viatris License Agreement

In November 2022, the Company entered into the Viatris License Agreement, pursuant to which it granted Viatris (as successor to Famy) an exclusive, perpetual,
sub-licensable license to develop, manufacture, import, export and commercialize (i) PS, for treating (a) reversal of mydriasis, (b) night vision disturbances or dim light vision, and (c) presbyopia, and (ii) PS and low dose pilocarpine for
treating presbyopia (together, the “PS Products”) worldwide except for certain countries and jurisdictions in Asia (the “Viatris Territory”). The Company retains the exclusive right to develop, manufacture, have manufactured, import, export and
commercialize the PS Products outside of the Viatris Territory.

Form 10-K

Under the terms of the Viatris License Agreement, the Company, in partnership with Viatris, will develop the PS Products in the United States. Viatris will reimburse the
Company for agreed-to budgeted costs related to the development of the PS Products through FDA approval, and then share costs above the agreed upon threshold amount.

Pursuant to the Viatris License Agreement, the Company received a one-time non-refundable cash payment of $35 million in November 2022 for the exclusive, perpetual,
sub-licensable license to develop, manufacture, import, export and commercialize the PS Products in the Viatris Territory. In addition, with respect to the PS Products, the Company will be eligible to receive potential additional payments of up
to $130 million upon achieving certain specified regulatory or net sales milestones, with the first milestone payment of $10 million already made following approval by the FDA of PS for reversal of mydriasis, which occurred during the third
quarter of 2023. The Company will also receive tiered royalties, starting at low double-digit royalties up to low 20% royalties, based on the aggregate annual net sales of all PS Products in the United States, and will receive low double-digit
royalties based on all annual net sales in the Viatris Territory outside of the United States. The royalty payments will continue on a country-by-country basis from the date of the first commercial sale of the first PS Product in a country of
the Viatris Territory until December 31, 2040.

University of Pennsylvania LCA5/RDH12 License Agreement

On June 15, 2022, Opus entered into an amended and restated license agreement (the “LCA5/RDH12 Agreement”) with the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”)
pursuant to which it was granted an exclusive, royalty-bearing license to certain patents and a non-exclusive license to certain information relating to products directed towards treatment or correction of mutation of the LCA5 or RDH12 genes.
In connection with signing, we granted to Penn shares of common stock equal to a mid single-digit percentage of our then total capital stock calculated on a fully diluted basis. We will make additional payments to Penn upon the achievement of
certain specified development, regulatory and commercial milestone events up to a maximum potential aggregate amount of $2.6 million. Until we are required to pay royalties under the LCA5/RDH2 Agreement, we must pay an annual license
maintenance fee to Penn in the low tens of thousands of dollars. In addition, we will make quarterly tiered royalty payments in low single-digit percentages on net sales of licensed products, subject to minimum annual royalty payments up to the
low tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the given year. We will also make payments on any sublicense income, in percentages up to the mid teens, with such percentage depending on the stage of product development. The term of the
LCA5/RDH12 Agreement continues until the later of (i) expiration of the licensed patents and (ii) 10 years after first commercial sale, unless Penn has cause to terminate earlier for our material breach of the license or bankruptcy. We have the
right to terminate the LCA5/RDH12 Agreement at any time during the term with certain prior written notice to Penn.

Iveric Asset Purchase Agreement – BEST1 and RHO Programs

On December 23, 2022, Opus entered into an asset purchase agreement with Iveric (the “Iveric Agreement”) pursuant to which the Company acquired certain assets, including
the BEST1 License (as defined below), relating to the BEST1 and RHO products.

If, with respect to the BEST1 products or the RHO products during a specified earn-out period (i.e., from the date of signing the Iveric Agreement until the later of 15
years following first commercial sale of a product in a country or the expiration of all applicable regulatory exclusivity periods with respect to such product in such country), (i) we materially breach our diligence obligations with respect to
the BEST1 products or the RHO products, as applicable, (ii) the acquired intellectual property licenses relating to the BEST1 products or the RHO products, as applicable, are terminated for any reason, or (iii) we cease efforts to exploit the
BEST1 products or the RHO products, as applicable, for a certain period (subject to certain exceptions), then upon Iveric’s request we are obligated to assign to Iveric our rights to the BEST1 products or the RHO products, as applicable,
including related patent rights, contracts, information and regulatory documents.

Until the sixth anniversary of signing, Iveric has a right of first refusal if we intend to seek or pursue a deal to license, sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of all or
substantially all of our assets primarily relating to either or both of the BEST1 or RHO product candidates, or if we receive an unsolicited offer from a third party relating to the foregoing.

Form 10-K

In connection with signing of the Iveric Agreement, we paid Iveric an upfront fee of $500,000 and issued to Iveric certain shares of series seed preferred stock of Opus
equivalent to a high single digit percentage of our then outstanding capital stock. We will make additional payments to Iveric upon the achievement of specified (i) development milestones, the maximum potential aggregate amount of such
milestones being $11.35 million with respect to the BEST1 program and $1.45 million with respect to the RHO program and (ii) commercial milestones, the maximum potential aggregate amount of such milestones being $95.4 million with respect to
the BEST1 program and $3.5 million with respect to the RHO program. In addition, we will make royalty payments in the low single digit percentages on net sales of licensed RHO and BEST1 products.

Penn and University of Florida BEST1 License Agreement

On April 10, 2019, Iveric entered into an exclusive patent license agreement (as amended, the “BEST1 License”) with Penn and the University of Florida Research Foundation
(“UF”), which agreement was assigned to Opus under the terms of the Iveric Agreement. Under the BEST1 License, Opus received exclusive patent rights and non-exclusive knowhow and data rights with regard to products to treat diseases associated
with mutations in the BEST1 gene. In connection with signing, Iveric paid Penn an upfront fee in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars. We will make additional payments to Penn upon the achievement of specified (i) clinical and regulatory
milestones up to a maximum potential aggregate amount of $15.65 million for the first licensed product, regardless of category (i.e., “wildtype only products” or “knockdown and replace products”), and $3.13 million for the first licensed
product from a different category, and (ii) commercial milestones, up to a maximum potential aggregate amount of $48 million for the first licensed product, regardless of category, and $9.6 million for the first licensed product from a
different category. In consideration for Penn and UF’s consent to the assignment of the BEST1 License to us under the Iveric Agreement, we will also pay Penn a percentage, in the mid teens, of each milestone payment that we are required to pay
to Iveric under the Iveric Agreement. Until we are required to pay royalties under the BEST1 License, we must pay an annual license maintenance fee to UF and Penn in the low tens of thousands of dollars. In addition, we will make quarterly
tiered royalty payments in the low single-digit percentages on net sales of licensed BEST1 products, subject to minimum annual royalty payments in the mid tens of thousands of dollars, starting from the earlier of the first commercial sale of a
licensed product or a future specified date. We will also make payments on sublicense income, in percentages up to the mid teens, with such percentage depending on the stage of product development.

The term of the BEST1 License continues until the later of (i) expiration of the licensed patents, (ii) expiration of regulatory exclusivity, or (iii) 10 years after the
first commercial sale of a licensed product, unless UF or Penn has caused the BEST1 License to terminate earlier for our material breach of the license or bankruptcy. We have the right to terminate the BEST1 License in its entirety or with
respect to a particular category of licensed products with certain prior written notice to Penn (without affecting our rights or obligations to the other category of licensed products), at any time prior to an investigational new drug
application or clinical trial application (“IND”) for a licensed product in such category becoming effective. After an IND for a licensed product in a particular category becomes effective, then the BEST1 License will be non-cancellable with
respect to such category, except that we will have the right to terminate the agreement with respect to such category by providing UF and Penn written notice.

LCA5 VR License

On March 2, 2023, Opus entered into a non-exclusive license agreement (the “LCA5 VR License”) with Penn pursuant to which it was granted a non-exclusive license to certain
patents and copyrights relating to testing visual function using simulated living situations in individuals with visual disorders, for Opus’ use in clinical trials for the evaluation of retinal disorder treatments caused by LCA5 mutations. In
connection with signing, we paid Penn an upfront fee in the low tens of thousands of dollars. We will make additional payments to Penn, in the low single digit thousands of dollars, for each use of a licensed product in a clinical trial. The
term of the LCA5 VR License continues until six months after the conclusion of all clinical trials for the evaluation of treatments for retinal disorders caused by a mutation or mutations in the LCA5 gene. We have the right to terminate the
LCA5 VR License at any time during the term with certain prior written notice to Penn.

Form 10-K

Penn and UF RHO License Agreement

On June 6, 2018, Iveric entered into an exclusive patent license agreement (the “RHO License”) by and between Penn and UF pursuant to which the Company has exclusive patent
rights and non-exclusive knowhow and data rights with regard to products to treat rhodopsin-mediated diseases. In return for these rights, the Company is obligated to make certain development milestone payments and royalty payments on future
sales of such products.

Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary License Agreement

On November 9, 2021, Opus entered into a license agreement (the “MEEI License”) with the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (“MEEI”), granting an exclusive worldwide
license of MEEI patents for use in the NMNAT1 program for all products and processes including the treatment of retinal disease in humans, and a non-exclusive worldwide license to technological information. In return for these rights, the
Company is obligated to make certain development milestone payments and royalty payments on future sales of such products.

Apexian Sublicense Agreement

On January 21, 2020, the Company entered into a sublicense agreement with Apexian Pharmaceuticals, Inc. pursuant to which it obtained an exclusive worldwide patent and
other intellectual property rights relating to a Ref-1 Inhibitor program, including APX3330, for the treatment of ophthalmic or diabetic diseases. In exchange for the patent and other intellectual rights, the Company agreed to certain milestone
payments and royalty payments on future sales.

Intellectual Property

Gene Therapy

We in-license multiple patents and patent applications directed to our gene therapy programs. We also own one patent family directed to our MERTK therapeutic program. Our
patent estate for each gene therapy program, as of December 31, 2025, is described in more detail below.

For our LCA5 therapeutic program, we in-license one patent family directed to compositions of matter and therapeutic methods using such compositions of matter. The patent
family contains patents in the U.S., Japan, Australia, and South Korea and pending patent applications in the U.S., Europe, and additional foreign countries. The foregoing U.S. patent expires in 2039, and the Japanese, Australian, and South
Korean patents, including any patents that may be granted based on the foregoing pending patent applications, will expire in 2038, each not including any patent term extension.

For our BEST1 therapeutic program, we in-license four patent families. The first patent family is directed to compositions
of matter and therapeutic methods using such compositions of matter and has one patent in China and patent applications pending in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and additional foreign countries. The patent in China, and patents if granted based
on the foregoing patent applications, would expire in 2039, not including any patent term extension. The second and third patent families are each directed to methods of treatment and have patent applications pending in the U.S., Europe,
Japan, and additional foreign countries. Patents, if granted based on the foregoing patent applications, would expire in 2041, not including any patent term extension. The fourth patent family is direct to methods of treatment and methods
for assessing treatment and has patent applications pending in the U.S. and Europe. Patents, if granted based on the foregoing patent applications, would expire in 2042, not including any patent term extension.

For our RHO therapeutic program, we in-license two patent families, each directed to compositions of matter and therapeutic methods using such compositions of matter. The first patent family
has patents in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and additional foreign countries, while the second patent family has patents in the U.S., Japan and China. Each patent family also has patent applications pending in the U.S., Europe, and additional
foreign countries. The foregoing patents, including any patents to grant based on the foregoing patent applications, will expire from 2037 to 2042, not including any patent term extension.

Form 10-K

For our MERTK therapeutic program, we own one patent family directed to compositions of matter and therapeutic methods
using such compositions of matter. This patent family contains pending patent applications in the US., Europe, Japan, and additional foreign countries. Patents, if granted based on the foregoing patent applications, would expire in 2044,
not including any patent term extension.

For our RDH12 therapeutic program, we in-license one patent family directed to compositions of matter and therapeutic methods using such compositions of matter, consisting
of patents in the U.S., Japan, Australia, and additional foreign countries and pending patent applications in the U.S., Europe, and additional foreign countries. The foregoing patents, including any patents to grant based on the pending patent
applications, will expire in 2037, not including any patent term extension.

For our NMNAT1 therapeutic program, we in-license one patent family directed to compositions of matter and therapeutic methods using such compositions of matter, consisting
of one U.S. patent and pending patent applications in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and additional foreign countries. These patents, if granted based on the pending patent applications, would expire in 2041, not including any patent term extension.

For our CNGB1 therapeutic program, we in-license one patent family directed to compositions of matter and therapeutic methods using such compositions of matter. This
patent family contains a patent in the U.S. and Japan and pending patent applications in the U.S., Europe, and additional foreign countries, whereby the U.S. and Japanese patents and patents, if granted, based on the foregoing pending patent
applications, expire in year 2038, not including any patent term extension.

PS

Our patent estate includes patents and patent applications to forms of phentolamine mesylate, formulations containing phentolamine mesylate, methods of using phentolamine
mesylate, and methods of manufacturing phentolamine mesylate. We own all of the worldwide rights to PS for all indications, but out-license certain rights to PS pursuant to the Viatris License Agreement.

Our patent estate relating to PS contains over 15 U.S. patents, over nine pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, two pending international patent application, as well as issued
patents in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Mexico and pending patent applications in Europe, Japan, and other foreign countries. Multiple U.S. patents and counterpart Australian, Canadian, European, and Japanese patents are directed to
aqueous phentolamine mesylate formulations and are scheduled to expire in 2034. Additional multiple U.S. patents and counterpart Australian, Canadian, European, and Japanese patents are directed to methods of improving visual performance
using, for example, phentolamine mesylate and are scheduled to expire in 2034.

We also own two U.S. patents with claims to methods of treating presbyopia, and three U.S. patents with claims to methods of treating mydriasis—each of the foregoing U.S. patents are
scheduled to expire in 2039. Additionally, we own one pending U.S. patent application with claims to treating presbyopia and two pending U.S. patent applications with claims to treating mydriasis. Counterpart patent applications are pending
in Europe, Japan, and other foreign countries—if granted based on these pending applications, these patents would expire in 2039. Patent applications are also pending in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and other foreign countries directed to
additional methods for treating mydriasis—if granted based on the foregoing patent applications, these patents would expire in 2042. We own two U.S. provisional patent applications directed to methods of treating presbyopia, whereby patents,
if granted based on non-provisional patent applications to be filed based on these provisional patent applications, would expire in 2046. In addition, we own a pending international patent application directed to improving visual performance
under low light conditions, whereby patents, if granted based on non-provisional patent applications to be filed based on this international patent application, would expire in 2045.

We also own two U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent application, and pending foreign patent applications in Europe, Japan, and additional foreign countries directed to high-purity
phentolamine mesylate and methods for making the same. We also have a pending international patent application and pending U.S. patent application directed to particular phentolamine mesylate crystal forms and their use—if granted based on
the foregoing patent applications, these patents would expire in 2043.

We have obtained registration of the “RYZUMVI®” trademark in the United States.

Form 10-K

APX3330

As of December 31, 2025, the patent estate that we in-license for APX3330 and related compounds contains over nine U.S. patents as well as issued patents in Europe, Japan, and additional
foreign countries, and pending patent applications in Europe and Canada. The license is for the use and commercialization of APX3330 and related compounds covered by the subject patents and patent applications in the field of human health
uses for ophthalmic and diabetes mellitus indications.

One in-licensed U.S. patent is directed to methods of treating diabetic retinopathy and other diseases using, for example, APX3330, and is scheduled to expire in year 2030,
not including any patent term extension. Counterpart patents have issued in Europe, Japan, and additional foreign countries, which are scheduled to expire in year 2028. A separate in-licensed patent family directed to methods of treating wet
Age-Related Macular Degeneration and other diseases using, for example, APX2009 or APX2014, contains one U.S. patent and patents in Europe, Japan, and additional foreign countries, as well as a pending patent application in Canada—these
patents, including any patents to grant based on the pending patent applications, will expire in 2039. Additional in-licensed patents and patent applications are directed to methods of treating certain retinal diseases, combination therapy,
and/or derivatives of APX3330—these patents, including any patents to grant based on the foregoing pending patent applications, will expire from 2028 to 2038, not including any patent term extension.

In addition, as of December 31, 2025, we own one U.S. provisional patent application, two U.S. non-provisional patent
application, one international patent application, and patent applications in Europe, Japan, and additional foreign countries and directed to methods of treating diabetic retinal diseases using APX3330. Patents, if granted, based on the
foregoing patent applications, would expire from 2042 to 2045, not including any patent term extension. Additionally, we own pending patent applications in the U.S., Europe, Japan and other foreign countries directed to APX3330 salts and
esters—whereby patents, if granted based on the foregoing patent applications, would expire in 2043, not including any patent term extension. Also, we own a pending international patent application directed to formulations containing APX3330,
whereby patents, if granted based on non-provisional patent applications to be filed based on this international patent application, would expire in 2044, not including any patent term extension.

Competition

We and our development partners face competition from both branded and generic pharmaceutical companies as well as products that are currently in development. Many of these
companies have significantly greater financial and human resources and experience in drug development, R&D, and commercialization. These competitors compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel,
establishing clinical trial sites and patient enrollment for clinical trials, and acquiring products, product candidates or other technologies complementary to our programs. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be
significant competitors if they choose to partner with large, established companies.

Inherited Retinal Diseases

While we are not currently aware of any direct competitors for our OPGx-LCA5 or OPGx-BEST1 gene therapy program, there are various companies developing gene therapies for
the treatment of IRDs, which may ultimately directly compete with us in the future. To our knowledge, there are no active IRD gene therapy programs in development for the treatment of LCA5, BEST1, NMNAT1, or MERTK genes. With respect to the
RDH12 gene, there is an investigator-initiated trial in China and a program from MeiraGTX. For the RHO program, Octant Bio has a preclinical program in IND-enabling studies. Cell therapies and optogenetics are potential competition for late
stages for our diseases from genes of interest at which point, gene augmentation may be less efficacious.

PS

Phentolamine Ophthalmic Solution 0.75% is in development for additional indications of presbyopia as well as decreased visual
acuity under low light conditions following keratorefractive surgery. There are multiple potential competitors for the treatment of presbyopia including Lenz Therapeutics (LNZ100 - 1.75% Aceclidine), AbbVie (VUITY® (pilocarpine
hydrochloride ophthalmic solution) - 1.25%), and TenPoint Therapeutics (YUVEZZITM (carbachol and brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution) - 2.75%/0.1%). We are not aware of direct competition for the treatment of DLD following
keratorefractive surgery.

Form 10-K

In January 2025, we received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice (“Notice Letter”) that Sandoz, Inc., a provider of generic
and biosimilar medicines (“Sandoz”), submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use or sell a generic version of RYZUMVI® for the reversal of pharmacologically-induced mydriasis in the
U.S. prior to the expiration of six of our patents listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations publication (the “Orange Book”). The Notice Letter alleges that these patents are invalid or
unenforceable or will not be infringed by the generic product described in Sandoz’s ANDA. If the challenge by Sandoz is successful, it could result in the introduction of a generic competitor to the market before the expiration of our
patents, thereby reducing our market share and potential future revenue from sales of RYZUMVI® for reversal of pharmacologically-induced mydriasis. In March 2025, in collaboration with our commercialization partner for RYZUMVI®, we filed a
complaint for patent infringement of certain RYZUMVI® patents against Sandoz in the District of New Jersey in response to Sandoz’s ANDA filing. The complaint seeks, among other relief, equitable relief enjoining Sandoz from infringing the
RYZUMVI® patents. The case is currently in the middle of fact discovery, and a trial date has been scheduled for January 2027.

APX3330

There are multiple products currently used to treat diabetic retinopathy and macular edema including anti-VEGF therapies, including faricimab-svoa (Vabysmo), ranibizumab
(Lucentis) and aflibercept (Eylea). There are also multiple additional therapies in research and development stages for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Photocoagulation and vitrectomies may also be used to treat diabetic retinopathy.

Government Regulation and Product Approvals

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union (“EU”),
extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and
reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and
regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

The EMA is a decentralized agency governed by an independent management board responsible for the evaluation, supervision, and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU. The
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regulates medicines, medical devices, and blood components in the United Kingdom (UK) and serves as a similar function to the EMA in the EU, following the exit of the UK from the EU
(the so-called “Brexit”). The Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) serves a similar function to the FDA in the United States and is an independent administrative institution. The National Medical Products Administration
(NMPA) is the Chinese agency for regulating drugs and medical devices (formerly the China Food and Drug Administration or CFDA).

Review and Approval of Drugs and Biologics in the United States

In the United States, the FDA regulates drug and biological products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”),
respectively, and implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and
financial resources. The failure to comply with applicable requirements under the FDCA, PHSA and other applicable laws at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or
sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters, untitled letters, and other types
of letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and
penalties brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug or biological product in the United States must typically undertake the following:

•

completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance, as applicable, with the Animal Welfare Act and FDA’s good laboratory practice, or GLP, regulations;

Form 10-K

•

submission to the FDA of an IND, which must take effect before human clinical trials may begin;

•

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

•

performance of human clinical trials, including adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCP, and other applicable regulations to establish the safety
and efficacy of the proposed drug product, or the safety, purity, and potency of the proposed biologic, for each proposed indication;

•

manufacturing, packaging, labelling, and distribution of drug substances and drug products consistent with the FDA’s cGMP regulations, as well as GLP non-clinical and GCP clinical studies to investigate
the drug candidate;

•

development of product label, package inserts, and prescriber information that is intended to be used and included with the commercial product;

•

preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA, BLA or supplements;

•

review of the product by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable;

•

satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product, or components thereof, are produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements and
to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•

satisfactory completion of FDA audits of clinical trial site(s) to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of the clinical data;

•

FDA approval of application; and

•

compliance with any post-approval requirements, including Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, or REMS, and

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as in vitro and in vivo animal studies to assess the safety and
activity of the product candidate for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of
the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical
testing, such as long-term repeat-dose toxicology studies, may continue after the IND is submitted.

Companies usually must complete some long-term preclinical testing, such as long-term repeat-dose toxicology studies, and must also develop additional information about the
chemistry and physical characteristics of the investigational product 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 candidate product and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected
and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the candidate product does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Form 10-K

The IND and IRB Processes

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved drug or biological to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial. In
support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, the results of preclinical tests, together with
manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND goes into effect 30-days after its filing, unless during
this 30-day period the FDA raises concerns or questions and imposes a clinical hold.

A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a
delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after imposition of a
clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has
notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can
proceed. The FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on a trial after a clinical trial has begun.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND
requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the trial complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements in order to use the trial as support for an IND or
application for marketing approval, including that such trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and obtaining informed consent from patients. The GCP
requirements in the final rule encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human patients enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as
the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.

In addition, an IRB (or Independent Ethics Committee (IEC or EC), within Europe) representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve
the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must exercise continuing supervision over the trial. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the trial protocol and informed consent information
to be provided to trial patients. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being
conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee.
This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the trial. Suspension or termination of development during any phase
of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by Opus based on evolving business objectives and/or
competitive climate.

Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on its
ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA or BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human patients or healthy volunteers under the supervision of qualified investigators in
accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research patients provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under
written trial protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the trial, the tests to be conducted on study participants, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness
criteria to be evaluated.

Form 10-K

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in 3 sequential phases, but the phases may overlap.

•

Phase 1. The drug or biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or, in certain indications such as cancer, patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety,
dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness and to determine optimal dosage.

•

Phase 2. The drug or biological product is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for
specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.

•

Phase 3. The drug or biological product is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough
data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product and to provide adequate information for the labelling of the product.

Reports detailing activities under, and the status of, an IND must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA
for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug or biological product; and any clinically
important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at
all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or
terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biological product has been associated with
unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

Sponsors may reach an SPA agreement with respect to the design of clinical trials. The FDA’s SPA process is designed to facilitate the FDA’s review and approval of drugs
and biologics by allowing the FDA to evaluate the proposed design and size of certain clinical or animal studies, including clinical trials that are intended to form the primary basis for determining a product candidate’s efficacy. Upon
specific request by a clinical trial sponsor, the FDA will evaluate the protocol and respond to a sponsor’s questions regarding protocol design and scientific and regulatory requirements. The FDA aims to complete SPA reviews within 45 days of
receipt of the request. The FDA ultimately assesses whether specific elements of the protocol design of the trial, such as entry criteria, dose selection, endpoints and/or planned analyses, are acceptable to support regulatory approval of the
product with respect to the effectiveness of the indication studied. All exchanges between the FDA and the sponsor regarding an SPA must be clearly documented in an SPA letter or the minutes of a meeting between the sponsor and the FDA.

Although the FDA may agree to an SPA, an SPA agreement does not guarantee approval of a product. Even if the FDA agrees to the design, execution, and analysis proposed in
protocols reviewed under the SPA process, the FDA may revoke or alter its agreement in certain circumstances. In particular, an SPA agreement is not binding on the FDA if public health concerns emerge that were unrecognized at the time of the
SPA agreement, other new scientific concerns regarding product safety or efficacy arise, the sponsor company fails to comply with the agreed upon trial protocols, or the relevant data, assumptions or information provided by the sponsor in a
request for the SPA change or are found to be false or omit relevant facts.

In addition, even after an SPA agreement is finalized, the SPA agreement may be modified, and such modification will be deemed binding on the FDA review division, except
under the circumstances described above, if the FDA and the sponsor agree in writing to modify the protocol. Generally, such modification is intended to improve the study. The FDA retains significant latitude and discretion in interpreting the
terms of the SPA agreement and the data and results from any study that is the subject of the SPA agreement. Moreover, if the FDA revokes or alters its agreement under the SPA, or interprets the data collected from the clinical trial
differently than we do, the FDA may not deem the data sufficient to support an application for regulatory approval.

Form 10-K

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies often complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical
characteristics of the drug or biological product as well as 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 drug or biologic candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the final drug or biologic. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected
and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug or biological candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Submission of an NDA or BLA to the FDA

Assuming successful completion of required clinical testing and other requirements, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed
information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an application requesting approval to market the drug or biological product for one or more
indications. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs and BLAs are subject to an application user fee. The sponsor of an approved NDA or BLA is also subject to an annual prescription drug program fee. Certain exceptions and waivers are
available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for drugs or biologics with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of an NDA or BLA within 60 days of
its receipt and informs the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than
accept an NDA or BLA for filing, and the sponsor receives a Refuse to File Notice. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts
it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review process of NDAs and BLAs. The goal for review of most standard applications
is within 10 months from the date of filing, and for “priority review” products the review goal is within 6 months of filing. The review process may be extended by the FDA to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant
to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections
(“PAIs”) may cover all facilities associated with an NDA or BLA submission, including drug or biologic component manufacturing (such as active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished drug or biological product manufacturing, and control testing
laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required
specifications at the commercial scale. Additionally, before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.

In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”). REMS uses risk minimization
strategies to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, physician communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU may include,
but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The FDA may require a REMS at the time of approval or
post-approval if it becomes aware of a serious risk associated with use of the product. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a product.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug or biologic to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, 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.

Form 10-K

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review Designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or
life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are referred to as fast-track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, and priority review designation.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of
a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may
initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay
applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a Fast Track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the
FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Second, a product may be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or
life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment
effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to Breakthrough Therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product
sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; and assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team.

Third, the FDA may designate a product for Priority Review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in
safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case- by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of
increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence
of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application
from 10 months to 6 months.

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA or BLA

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA or BLA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may
issue an approval letter, or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the
deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of
the NDA or BLA, the FDA may issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in 2 or 6 months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately
may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the
product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the safety of drugs or biologics after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after
commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or
limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional
labelling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Form 10-K

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs and biologics manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things,
requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting (such as annual reports and quarterly safety reports for the first 3 years), product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the
product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements for any marketed products, as
well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

In addition, drug and biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their
establishments with the FDA and state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often
require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers
that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

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

•

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

•

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

•

refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or BLAs, or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation;

•

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

•

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs and biological products may be promoted only for
the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. All promotional materials must be submitted to FDA prior to the time of their first use. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations
prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drug
samples at the federal level and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug sample distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose
requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Form 10-K

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

NDAs for most new drug products are based on 2 adequate and well-controlled clinical trials which must contain substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the
proposed new product. These applications are submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. The FDA is, however, authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. This type of application allows the applicant
to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy for a similar product, or published literature. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) applies to an NDA for a drug for which the investigations to show whether the drug is safe
and effective and relied upon by the applicant for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the
investigations were conducted.”

Thus, Section 505(b)(2) authorizes the FDA to approve an NDA based in part on safety and effectiveness data that were not developed by the applicant. Section 505(b)(2) may
provide an alternate and potentially more expeditious pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. If the Section 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous
approval is scientifically appropriate, the applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical studies or clinical trials of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to
support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section
505(b)(2) applicant.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the
FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the
preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference-listed drug, or RLD.

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA generally must find that the generic version is a duplicate to the Reference Listed Drug (“RLD”) with respect to
the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, conditions of use and the strength of the drug. The FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug
is required to be bioequivalent to an RLD.

Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication Approved Drug Products with
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also referred to as the Orange Book. Clinicians and pharmacists often consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and
numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing clinicians or patient.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period
of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. For the purposes of this provision, a new chemical entity, or “NCE”, is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the
FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until
the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

Form 10-K

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or
bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period applies to the condition(s) of use for which the new clinical investigation was
conducted and often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously
approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs seeking approval for
generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved
method of using the product. Each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed
for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already
approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that: (1) the required patent information has not been filed, (2) the listed patent has expired, (3)
the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the new product.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph
IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the
referenced product have expired (other than method of use patents involving indications for which the applicant is not seeking approval).

If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent
holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit
within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent, or a decision in the
infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA
concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. As a result, approval of a Section 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced
product have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of an NCE, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent
patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

505(b)(2) and NCE Data Exclusivity in U.S.

In the United States, the Hatch-Waxman Act provides a 3-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval through
a 505(b)(2) application seeking regulatory approval of, for example, a new indication, dosage, or strength of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigation and
does not prohibit the FDA from approving an ANDA for drugs containing the original active agent. Under this provision, PS for use in treating presbyopia, mydriasis, or decreased vision under dim (mesopic or low) lighting conditions after
keratorefractive surgery may be eligible for 3 years of data exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Form 10-K

In the United States, the Hatch-Waxman Act provides period of 5-years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. For the purposes of
this provision, a new chemical entity, or “NCE”, is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or
pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification,
in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as the Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price
Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. This amendment to the PHSA
attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through
analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results
as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative
to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed
by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may
still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the
safety, purity and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in
fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law. In addition, recent legislative and regulatory proposals have sought to reduce or altogether eliminate the distinctions between interchangeable products and
conventional biosimilar products, making the long-term status of these products unclear.

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an NDA or BLA, or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug
or biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. With enactment of the Food and
Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (“FDASIA”), in 2012, sponsors must also submit pediatric trial plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric trial or studies the applicant plans
to conduct, including trial objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted,
consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for
use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in FDASIA. Unless otherwise required by
regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

Form 10-K

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional 6 months to the
term of any patent or regulatory exclusivity, including orphan exclusivity. This 6-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA or BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do
not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies
are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, the latest statutory or regulatory period of exclusivity or patent covering the product is extended by 6 months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively
extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug or biological product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition (generally meaning
that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or
condition will be recovered from sales of the product). A company must request orphan product designation before submitting an NDA or BLA. If the request is granted, the FDA will disclose the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential
use. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product with orphan status receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product generally will receive orphan
drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve any other applications for the same product for the same indication for 7 years, except in certain limited circumstances. Competitors may receive approval of different
products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity and may obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication. If a product designated as an orphan product ultimately receives marketing approval for an
indication broader than what was designated in its orphan product application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug or biological product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up
to 5 years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or BLA, plus the time
between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable
to an approved drug or biological product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs or biologics for which
approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA. We cannot
provide any assurance that any patent term extension with respect to any U.S. patent will be obtained or, if obtained, the duration of such extension, in connection with any of its product candidates.

Review and Approval of Drug Products in the European Union

In order to market any medicinal product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and
jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we would need
to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries
and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain
FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process
in others.

Form 10-K

Procedures Governing Approval of Drug Products in the European Union

Pursuant to the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented. Under the applicable
system, an applicant must obtain approval from the competent national authority of a European Union member state in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial after a competent ethics
committee has issued a favorable opinion. Clinical trial application must be accompanied by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by the European Clinical Trials Regulation and corresponding
national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents.

To obtain marketing approval of a product under European Union regulatory systems, an applicant must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA, either under a
centralized or decentralized, mutual recognition or a national procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all European Union member states. The
centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active
substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of
patients, the centralized procedure may be optional.

Under the centralized procedure, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the CHMP, established at the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, is responsible for
conducting the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the
centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to
questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic
innovation. In this circumstance, the EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days.

The decentralized procedure is available to applicants who wish to market a product in various European Union member states where such product has not received marketing
approval in any European Union member states before. The decentralized procedure provides for simultaneous approval by one or more other, or concerned, member states of an assessment of an application performed by one-member state designated by
the applicant, known as the reference member state. Under this procedure, an applicant submits an application based on identical dossiers and related materials, including a draft summary of product characteristics, and draft labelling and
package leaflet, to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment report and drafts of the related materials within 210 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days
of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report and related materials, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.

If a member state cannot approve the assessment report and related materials on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a
dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

Within this framework, manufacturers may seek approval of hybrid medicinal products under Article 10(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. Hybrid applications rely, in
part, on information and data from a reference product and new data from appropriate pre-clinical tests and clinical trials. Such applications are necessary when the proposed product does not meet the strict definition of a generic medicinal
product, or bioavailability studies cannot be used to demonstrate bioequivalence, or there are changes in the active substance(s), therapeutic indications, strength, pharmaceutical form or route of administration of the generic product compared
to the reference medicinal product. In such cases the results of tests and trials must be consistent with the data content standards required in the Annex to the Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/63/EC.

Form 10-K

Hybrid medicinal product applications have automatic access to the centralized procedure when the reference product was authorized for marketing via that procedure. Where
the reference product was authorized via the decentralized procedure, a hybrid application may be accepted for consideration under the centralized procedure if the applicant shows that the medicinal product constitutes a significant
therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or the granting of a community authorization for the medicinal product is in the interest of patients at the community level.

Clinical Trial Approval in the European Union

Requirements for the conduct of clinical trials in the European Union including Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, are set forth in the Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014,
and the GCP Directive 2005/28/EC, as well as in the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, which have been adopted by the CHMP. Pursuant to
the Clinical Trials Regulation and Directive 2005/28/EC, as amended, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented. Under this system, approval must be obtained from the competent national authority of
each E.U. member state in which a trial is planned to be conducted. All ongoing clinical trials in the EU are subject to the provisions of the CTR as of January 31, 2025. In addition, on June 18, 2024, new CTIS transparency rules came into
effect, requiring scheduled publication of certain key clinical trial information. To this end, a CTA is submitted, which must be supported by an investigational medicinal product dossier, or IMPD, and further supporting information prescribed
by the Clinical Trials Regulation and Directive 2005/28/EC and other applicable guidance documents. Furthermore, a clinical trial may only be started after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion on the clinical trial
application in that country.

Under the Clinical Trials Regulation, it is also possible to submit a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the EU portal and a single set of
documents to be prepared and submitted for the application. Other main characteristics of the Clinical Trials Regulation include: as simplified reporting procedures that will spare sponsors from submitting broadly identical information
separately to various bodies and different member states; a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided into two parts (Part I is assessed jointly by all member states concerned, and Part II is
assessed separately by each member state concerned); strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications; and the involvement of the ethics committees in the assessment procedure in accordance with the national law of
the member state concerned but within the overall timelines defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

Marketing authorization is valid for five years in principle and the marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the
risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of
quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for
an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual
placing of the drug on the European Union market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Data and Market Exclusivity in the European Union

In the European Union, new chemical entities (“NCE”) and gene therapy products, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity (also called “regulatory data protection”) upon
marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. This data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated)
application for eight years, after which generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but the generic product cannot enter the market for two years. The overall ten-year period will be extended
to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their
authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be an NCE and the sponsor is able to gain the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company
nevertheless could also market another version of the product if such company can complete a full MAA with a complete database of pharmaceutical test, preclinical tests and clinical trials and obtain marketing approval of its product.

Form 10-K

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Regulation 141/2000 provides that a drug shall be designated as an orphan drug if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or
treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the European Community when the application is made, or that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or
treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Community and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Community would generate sufficient
return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in
the European Community or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Regulation 847/2000 sets out criteria and procedures governing designation of orphan drugs in the European Union. Specifically, an application for designation as an orphan
product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity, which can be further extended by two years if
pediatric studies have been conducted in accordance with an agreed pediatric investigational plan. This period may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the
criteria for orphan drug designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity. Market exclusivity can be revoked only in very selected cases, such as consent from the marketing authorization
holder, inability to supply sufficient quantities of the product, demonstration of “clinically relevant superiority” by a similar medicinal product, or, after a review by the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products of the EMA, requested by a
member state in the fifth year of the marketing exclusivity period (if the designation criteria are believed to no longer apply). Medicinal products designated as orphan drugs pursuant to Regulation 141/2000 shall be eligible for incentives
made available by the European Community and by the member states to support research into, and the development and availability of, orphan drugs.

It is noted that a wholesale revision of the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently underway, which will have a direct impact on the regulatory protections afforded to
medicinal products such as data exclusivity, marketing protection, market exclusivity for orphan indications and pediatric extension. On April 26, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and a new Regulation. The
legislative proposals provide for reduced periods of regulatory protections across the categories listed above. The text is now being deliberated at the level of the Council of the EU and it is not expected that the law, when adopted, will
become applicable until 2026 at the earliest.

Regulatory Requirements after Marketing Authorization

As in the United States, both marketing authorization holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA and the
competent authorities of the individual EU Member States both before and after grant of the manufacturing and marketing authorizations. The holder of an EU marketing authorization for a medicinal product must, for example, comply with EU
pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines which entail many requirements for conducting pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products. The manufacturing process for
medicinal products in the European Union is also highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations and good manufacturing practice. Manufacturing requires a manufacturing
authorization, and the manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, including compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical
ingredients.

Form 10-K

In the European Union, the advertising and promotion of approved products are subject to EU Member States’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with
clinicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In addition, other legislation adopted by individual EU Member States may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products. These laws require that
promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, as approved by the competent authorities. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with
the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion, which is prohibited in the European Union.

Healthcare Reform

The healthcare industry in the United States, including the pharmaceutical sector, is highly regulated and subject to frequent substantial changes. Any significant efforts
from the federal or state governments to change how healthcare is provided or funded within the United States could have a material impact on our business. Currently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”) is the seminal legislation that has had, and continues to have, substantial impact on the healthcare industry. The ACA was intended to expand access to health insurance
coverage for uninsured individuals while containing the overall cost of healthcare services. The ACA has been subject to reform through legislation, Executive Orders, and judicial challenges. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
included a provision that repealed the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual
mandate.” Further, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 fully repealed the ACA’s mandated “Cadillac” tax on certain high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices, and
eliminated the health insurer tax. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (“BBA”) amended the ACA to increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the
coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” Under the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”), this coverage gap was eliminated effective January 1, 2025. The IRA also requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay
10% of the negotiated price of brands, biologics, and biosimilar products, when Medicare Part D beneficiaries are in the initial coverage phase, and 20% of the negotiated price during the catastrophic phase of Medicare Part D coverage. On June
17, 2021, the United States Supreme Court dismissed a judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the law. In the future, there may be additional challenges and/or amendments
to the ACA. It remains to be seen precisely what any new legislation will provide, when or if it will be enacted, and what impact it will have on the availability and cost of healthcare items and services, including drug and biological
products. It is unclear how future actions before the Supreme Court, other such litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the Trump administration will impact the ACA.

Provisions in the ACA impacting our potential drug candidates include:

•

A special, non-deductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in
certain government healthcare programs, although this fee would not apply to sales of certain products approved exclusively for orphan indications;

•

Expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level,
thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability;

•

Expansion of manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”) by (i) increasing the minimum rebate for both branded and generic drugs; (ii) revising the definition of
“average manufacturer price,” or AMP, which must be reported to the government for purposes of calculating Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drugs; and (iii) creating a new methodology by which rebates owed by
manufacturers under the MDRP are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected;

•

Expansion of the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program;

•

Provisions authorizing the creation of a new independent nonprofit organization called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical
effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and

Form 10-K

•

Establishment of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and
Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

There may be additional legislative changes, including potential repeal and replacement of certain provisions of the ACA. While the timing and scope of any potential future
legislation to repeal and replace ACA provisions is highly uncertain in many respects, it is also possible that some of the ACA provisions that generally are not favorable for the research-based pharmaceutical sector could also be repealed
along with ACA coverage expansion provisions.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things,
created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required
goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013, and, due to
subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through the first eleven months of FY 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken (with the exception of a temporary suspension, and later a temporary reduction, instituted
during the COVID-19 pandemic that expired on July 1, 2022).

In addition, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the U.S. of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and
biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing
and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which temporarily increased premium tax credit
assistance for individuals eligible for subsidies under the ACA for 2021 and 2022 and removed the 400% federal poverty level limit that otherwise applies for purposes of eligibility to receive premium tax credits. The IRA extended this
increased tax credit assistance and removal of the 400% federal poverty limit through 2025. The enhanced subsidies expired on December 31, 2025, but remain the subject of Congressional debate.

The current presidential administration has also signaled its intent to pursue additional healthcare reform measures, including those aimed at reducing prescription drug
prices. For example, President Trump has signed multiple executive orders addressing prescription drug pricing and access, including: on April 15, 2025, outlining several actions the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
(“HHS”) must take to optimize healthcare regulations that will provide access to prescription drugs at lower costs; on May 5, 2025, aiming to promote domestic production of critical medicines; and on May 12, 2025, aiming to establish a “most
favored nation” drug pricing policy that would tie US drug prices to the prices paid for drugs in other countries. Additionally, CMS has taken action to implement the administration’s “most-favored-nation” pricing policy, including by
announcing a new voluntary payment model where drug manufacturers may offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs to provide such Medicaid programs with a “most favored nation” price for participating manufacturers’
products, as well proposing mandatory payment models where, if finalized, manufacturers of certain Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D drugs would be assessed rebates if the prices for such products exceed those paid in economically comparable
countries. Further, in February 2026, the administration announced the launch of a government-sponsored direct-to-consumer platform intended to facilitate the sale of certain prescription drugs directly to patients, which may impact traditional
distribution channels and pricing dynamics within the pharmaceutical market. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented 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. For example, several state laws require disclosures to state agencies and/or commercial purchasers with respect to price increases and new product launches that exceed certain pricing thresholds as identified in the relevant
statutes. Some of these laws and regulations contain ambiguous requirements that government officials have not yet clarified. Given the lack of clarity in the laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty
provisions of the pertinent federal and state laws and regulations. Some states have also established prescription drug affordability boards that are tasked with identifying certain high-cost prescription products that may pose affordability
challenges for consumers and payers, conducting cost reviews on such products, and, in some circumstances, imposing upper payment limits on such products.

Form 10-K

Policy changes, including potential modification or repeal of all or parts of the ACA or the implementation of new health care legislation, could result in significant
changes to the health care system, which may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our drugs. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future,
any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand or lower pricing for our product candidates, or additional pricing pressures.
Additionally, federal agency priorities, leadership, policies, rulemaking, communications, spending, and staffing may be significantly impacted by election cycles, including, for example, the current presidential administration’s continued
commitment to significantly reduce government spending through cuts to federal healthcare programs and reductions in the workforces of key government agencies, such as HHS, FDA, and CMS. Efforts by the current administration to limit federal
agency budgets or personnel may lead to slower response times and longer review periods, potentially affecting our ability to continue development of our product candidates or obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

The pharmaceutical industry is also subject to regulatory changes as the result of judicial challenges. For example, on June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an
opinion holding that courts reviewing agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) “must exercise their independent judgment” and “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is
ambiguous.” The decision could have a significant impact on how lower courts evaluate challenges to agency interpretations of law, including those by CMS and other agencies with significant oversight of the healthcare industry. The new
framework is likely to increase both the frequency of such challenges and their odds of success by eliminating one way in which the government previously prevailed in such cases. As a result, significant regulatory policies may be subject to
increased litigation and judicial scrutiny. Any resulting changes in regulation may result in unexpected delays, increased costs, or other negative impacts that are difficult to predict but could have a material adverse effect on our business
and financial condition. For example, certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the rates we will be able to charge for our future products or the amounts of reimbursement available for our future products from
governmental agencies or third-party payors.

Healthcare Frauds & Abuse and Compliance Laws and Regulations

There are other healthcare-related fraud and abuse and compliance laws and regulations that extensively govern how pharmaceutical companies, like Opus, are operated and
regulate activities related to pharmaceutical products. These laws and regulations may require administrative guidance to implement. Failure to comply could subject the Company to legal and/or administrative actions, which may include
substantial fines and/or penalties; orders to stop non-compliant activities; criminal charges; warning letters; product recalls or seizures; delays in product approvals; exclusion from participation in government reimbursement programs or
contracts as well as limitations on conducting business in applicable jurisdictions.

Form 10-K

Applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include:

•

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), which is a criminal law that prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering,
receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be
made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare or Medicaid. The AKS has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, pharmacies,
purchasers, and formulary managers on the other, including, for example, consulting/speaking arrangements, discount and rebate offers, grants, charitable contributions, and patient support offerings, among others. 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. Further, courts have found that the AKS has been violated if any “one purpose” of an arrangement involving
remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare program business. Violations of the AKS can result in significant civil monetary penalties and criminal fines, per each violation, additional civil penalties and treble damages
under the federal Civil False Claims Act (“FCA”), as described in detail further below, as well as imprisonment and mandatory exclusion from participation in government health care programs, meaning that federal healthcare programs
would no longer reimburse (directly or indirectly) for products or services furnished by the excluded entity or individuals. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors to the AKS that protect certain
common industry activities from prosecution, these exceptions and safe harbors are narrowly drawn. Arrangements that do not fully satisfy all elements of an available exception or safe harbor are evaluated based on the specific facts
and circumstances and are typically subject to increased scrutiny;

•

The FCA, which may be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions and imposes significant civil penalties, treble damages and potential exclusion from government health
care programs against individuals or entities for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or for making a false record or
statement material to an obligation to pay the federal government or for knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Further, a violation of the AKS can serve as a
basis for liability under the FCA. 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.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers have been investigated and/or subject to government enforcement actions asserting liability under the FCA for a variety of alleged activities, including alleged off-label promotion of drugs, purportedly
concealing price concessions in the pricing information submitted to the government for government price reporting purposes, and allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal
healthcare programs for the product. Violations of the FCA may result in significant civil fines and penalties for each false claim. For conduct occurring after November 2, 2015 but for which penalties are assessed after July 2, 2025,
civil penalties currently range from $14,308 - $28,619 per false claim or statement in addition to treble damages, and potential exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. There is also the federal Criminal False
Claims Act, which is similar to the FCA and imposes criminal liability on those that make or present a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim to the federal government;

•

The federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which authorizes the imposition of substantial civil monetary penalties against an entity that engages in activities including, among others
(1) knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a claim for services not provided as claimed or that is otherwise false or fraudulent in any way; (2) arranging for or contracting with an individual or entity that is excluded from
participation in federal health care programs to provide items or services reimbursable by a federal health care program; (3) violations of the AKS; and (4) failing to report and return a known overpayment;

•

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (“Sunshine Act”), implemented as the Open Payments Program, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical
supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, among others, to track and report annually to CMS, within HHS, information related to payments and other “transfers of value”
made by that entity to US-licensed physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants,
certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified nurse midwives, and teaching hospitals. The Sunshine Act also requires certain manufacturers, among others, to track and report ownership and investment interests held by U.S.-licensed
physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to timely, accurately, and completely submit the required information for all payments, transfers of value and ownership or investment interests may result in civil monetary
penalties;

Form 10-K

•

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) which created additional federal criminal statutes that impose criminal liability for knowingly and
willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, or to 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; knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program; willfully preventing, obstructing, misleading, or delaying
a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense; and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare
benefits, items, or services. Similar to the federal AKS, a person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

•

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, which mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the
electronic exchange of information in common health care transactions as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information. These standards require the adoption of administrative,
physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. In addition, many states have enacted comparable laws addressing the privacy and security of health information, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA. Failure to
comply with these laws can result in the imposition of significant civil and criminal penalties;

•

Analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items
or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, and may be broader in scope than their federal equivalents; and

•

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; require the reporting of certain pricing information, including information pertaining to and justifying price increases; prohibit prescription drug price gouging; or impose payment caps on certain pharmaceutical
products deemed by the state to be “high cost” in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

Additionally, we expect certain of our products, if and when approved, may be eligible for coverage under Medicare, the federal health care program that provides health
care benefits to the aged and disabled. Specifically, we expect our products would be primarily reimbursed under Medicare Part D, which provides an outpatient prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare Part D is implemented
through private insurance plans under contractual arrangements between the plans and the federal government. Similar to pharmaceutical coverage through private health insurance, Part D plans develop formularies, impose utilization controls
(such as prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limits), and negotiate discounts from drug manufacturers. Because of this, the list of prescription drugs covered by Part D plans varies by plan. However, with limited exceptions,
individual plans are required by statute to cover certain therapeutic categories and classes of drugs or biologics and to have at least two drugs in each unique therapeutic category or class. Our products may also be covered and reimbursed
under other government programs, including those discussed below.

We expect that we (and/or any of our commercialization partners) would be required to participate in the MDRP in order for federal payment to be available for our products
under Medicaid. Medicaid is a government health insurance program for eligible low-income adults, children, families, pregnant women, and people with certain disabilities and it is jointly funded by the federal and state governments. The MDRP
requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the HHS as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs furnished to
Medicaid patients. Under the MDRP, manufacturers must pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for quantities of products utilized on an outpatient basis (with some exceptions) that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a
state Medicaid program. MDRP rebates are calculated using a statutory formula, state-reported utilization data, and pricing data that are calculated and reported by manufacturers on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS. These data include the
AMP and, in the case of single source and innovator multiple source products, the best price for each drug.

Form 10-K

Under federal law, we further expect to be required to participate in the 340B drug pricing program, which 340B drug pricing program requires participating manufacturers to
agree to charge statutorily-defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include health care organizations that have certain federal designations or
receive funding from specific federal programs, including Federally Qualified Health Centers, Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program grantees, and certain types of hospitals and specialized clinics, as well as certain hospitals that serve a
disproportionate share of low-income patients. The ACA expanded the 340B program to also include certain children’s hospitals, certain free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, certain rural referral centers and certain sole
community hospitals, each as defined by ACA. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the AMP and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the MDRP, and in general, products
subject to the MDRP are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. Any changes to the definition of Medicaid AMP and the Medicaid rebate amount also could affect our 340B ceiling price calculation for our
products and could negatively impact our results of operations. In addition, after multiple delays, the final rule implementing civil monetary penalties against manufacturers for instances of overcharging 340B covered entities became effective
on January 1, 2019. Accordingly, if we have an approved product, we could be subject to such penalties if the government were to find that we knowingly and intentionally overcharged a 340B covered entity.

Additionally, for a company to be eligible to have its products paid for with federal funds under the MDRP and Medicare Part B programs, as well as to be purchased by
certain federal agencies and grantees, it also must participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program. To participate, manufacturers are required to enter into an FSS contract and other
agreements with the VA for any products which may qualify as “covered drugs.” Under these agreements, manufacturers must make such products available to the “Big Four” federal agencies-the VA, the Department of Defense (“DoD”), the Public
Health Service (including the Indian Health Service), and the Coast Guard-at pricing that is capped pursuant to a statutory federal ceiling price (“FCP”), formula set forth in Section 603 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (“VHCA”). The
FCP is based on a weighted average non-federal average manufacturer price (“Non-FAMP”), which manufacturers are required to report on a quarterly and annual basis to the VA.

Any failure to comply with price reporting and rebate payment obligations under federal healthcare programs could negatively impact our financial results. Civil monetary
penalties can be applied if we are found to have knowingly submitted any false price information to the government, if we are found to have made a misrepresentation in the reporting of our average sales price, or if we fail to submit the
required price data on a timely basis. Such conduct also could provide a basis for other potential liability under other federal laws such as the False Claims Act.

Healthcare Reimbursement

In the U.S. and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on
third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients and healthcare providers are unlikely to use our products unless third-party payor coverage is provided and reimbursement by such payor is adequate to
cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other comparable government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate
is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the U.S. such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations,
provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to
demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or
other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to each payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products on a payor-by-payor basis, with no assurance
that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization
once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate
will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ
significantly from payor to payor. Third-party coverage and reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to cover our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution.

Form 10-K

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. This
has resulted in congressional inquiries as well as other proposed and enacted legislation designed to (i) bring more transparency to product pricing, (ii) limit coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, and (iii) reform
government health program reimbursement within the healthcare system as a whole.

For example, on March 11, 2021, former President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which included among its provisions a sunset of the provision
in the ACA that capped pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability under the MDRP. Under the ACA, manufacturers’ rebate liability was previously capped at 100% of the AMP for a covered outpatient drug. As of January 1, 2024, manufacturers’
MDRP rebate liability is no longer capped, potentially resulting in a manufacturer paying more in MDRP rebates than it receives on the sale of certain covered outpatient drugs. Further, on August 16, 2022, former President Biden signed the IRA
into law. The IRA includes several provisions that may potentially impact our business, including provisions that (i) create a $2,000 cap (adjusted annually for inflation) on out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare Part D beneficiaries beginning in
2025, (ii) impose new manufacturer discount obligations for all drugs in Medicare Part D, (iii) allow the U.S. government establish a “maximum fair price” for a fixed number of pharmaceutical and biological products covered under Medicare Parts
B and D following a price negotiation process with CMS; (iv) require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for drug prices that increase faster than inflation. CMS has taken steps to implement the IRA, including: negotiating and publishing
“maximum fair prices” for drugs selected under the IRA’s price negotiation framework and releasing quarterly lists of Medicare Part B products and annual lists of Medicare Part D products that are subject to adjusted coinsurance rates based on
the inflationary rebate provisions of the IRA. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry, as several pharmaceutical manufacturers and other industry stakeholders have challenged the
law, including through lawsuits brought against HHS, the Secretary of HHS, CMS, and the CMS Administrator challenging the constitutionality and administrative implementation of the IRA’s drug price negotiation provisions. Additionally, when
originally enacted, the IRA explicitly excluded from price negotiation orphan drugs designated for only one rare disease or condition and for which the only active approved indication is for such disease or condition. However, the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”) signed into law on July 4, 2025 amended the applicable statute to broaden the orphan drug exclusion such that products with more than one orphan designation and more than one approved indication will remain exempt
from price negotiation, so long as each approved indication is for a rare disease or condition. The OBBBA also postpones the start of price negotiation requirements for drugs and biologics with orphan designations until the product receives
approval for a non-orphan indication.

Moreover, administrative actions continue to shape government pricing programs. For example, in September 2024, CMS published a final rule that included significant
revisions to certain MDRP provisions, including, but not limited to: (i) new definitions for key terms under the MDRP, such as “covered outpatient drug” and “market date”; (ii) revised processes for identifying drug misclassifications, as well
as additional penalties that can be imposed against manufacturers in connection with such misclassifications; and (iii) a new 12-quarter time limit for manufacturers to initiate disputes, hearing requests, and audits for state-invoiced rebate
amounts. In addition, there are pending legal and legislative developments relating to the 340B drug pricing program, including ongoing litigation challenging federal enforcement actions against manufacturers and recently introduced and enacted
state legislation. In March 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the Arkansas law prohibiting drug makers for restricting 340B drug discounts for providers using contract pharmacies. The current administration has also
considered several changes to the 340B program, including a proposal in the President’s 2026 budget to shift oversight of the 340B program from the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) to CMS. Additionally, on July 31, 2025,
HRSA announced that it will implement a 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program that will be open to a selected group of drugs and manufacturers. Although the Pilot was intended to become effective January 1, 2026, implementation was paused due to
ongoing litigation; however, industry stakeholders anticipate that HRSA will implement a revised pilot program this year.

Form 10-K

Moreover, individual states in the United States have become increasingly active in passing laws and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product
pricing, including reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, mechanisms to encourage importation from other countries and bulk
purchasing. It is likely that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which
could result in reduced demand for a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s products or additional pricing pressure.

Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products
for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. It is difficult to predict how Medicare coverage and reimbursement policies will be
applied to products for which the company receives marketing approval in the future and coverage and reimbursement under different federal healthcare programs is not always consistent. Further, private payors often follow the coverage and
reimbursement policies established under Medicare. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products for which we receive marketing approval.

Outside of the US, in the EU and the UK, the price of prescription only medicines is subject to governmental control, determined on a national level. Pricing negotiations
with national payors can last up to years following the grant of a marketing authorization and are subject to proving clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and an appropriate budget impact. In some jurisdictions, such as the UK and
Germany, a further positive recommendation from health technology on cost-effectiveness is required for the products to be actually prescribed and reimbursed by the respective national health systems.

As of January 12, 2025, the new EU Health Technology Regulation No 2021/2282 has become applicable in respect of new advanced therapy medicinal products (which include gene
therapy products) and oncology medicines. The Regulation imposes a new procedure, a joint clinical assessment at a centralized level, as a mandatory step for the assessment of the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products by national
authorities. It requires companies applying for products in scope to make relevant submissions for the joint clinical assessment, in line with a number of prespecified criteria. By 2030, it will apply to all medicinal products.

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2025, we had 27 full-time employees, and 1 part-time employee, with the following assignments: ten engaged in clinical research, development, and
regulatory activities, one of whom holds a Ph.D. degree, four engaged in research and development activities, all four of whom hold a Ph.D. degree, and fourteen engaged in finance, business development, human resources, and administrative
support. We plan to continue to utilize expert consultants and contract organizations to support execution of the day-to-day operations. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements.

We believe that we maintain good relations with our employees. We have expanded efforts to prioritize employee engagement by conducting employee surveys and offering
increased professional development opportunities and education assistance benefits.

Available Information

Our Internet address is https://opusgtx.com. We make available free of charge through our investor relations website, ir.opusgtx.com/sec-filings, copies of our Annual
Reports on Form 10 K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to the foregoing reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as
reasonably practicable after such documents are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The information contained on our website is not included as a part of, or incorporated by reference into, this Report.

Form 10-K