NASDAQ: NRXP

2.

A New Drug Application (NDA) for NRX-100, originally initiated during the fourth quarter of 2024, is in the process of completion and is expected to be filed in Q2 2026. This follows award of Fast Track Designation (FTD) by the FDA for the Company’s expanded indication of “Treatment of Suicidal Ideation in Depression, including Bipolar Depression.” A key element of the Company’s Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) strategy has focused on obtaining data to confirm the ketamine efficacy seen in clinical trials conducted under governmental auspices in the US and France. In Q3 2025, the FDA published new guidance that – for the first time – enabled sponsors to submit Real World Evidence (RWE) of efficacy without patient-identifiable information. Accordingly, the Company contracted with Osmind, Inc. to analyze and submit RWE drawn from 65,000 patients treated for depression with intravenous ketamine compared to 6,000 patients treated with intranasal S-ketamine. An interim analysis drawn from the first 20,000 patients suggests that IV ketamine may have a more rapid onset of action and larger magnitude of effect than nasal S-ketamine. The Company and Osmind met with the FDA to secure FDA’s agreement to review both the existing clinical trials and the RWE. FDA agreed to work with the Company in this manner and suggested an expanded clinical indication to encompass patients with severe depression, including bipolar depression, who may have suicidal ideation. The Company has completed all required manufacturing steps, including the manufacture of three registration batches, and demonstrated room temperature shelf stability to support a three-year room-temperature shelf life. The current market for ketamine as labeled for the treatment of depression is served only by a nasal preparation of S-ketamine (SPRAVATO®) that has current estimated sales of approximately $2 billion per year.

3)

An NDA filing for NRX-101 has been initiated with the submission of the Module 3 manufacturing file to the FDA. The drug was previously awarded Breakthrough Therapy Designation and accordingly the Company is requesting rolling review from the NDA. Breakthrough Therapy Designation is granted by the FDA to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions that address an unmet medical need and have demonstrated preliminary evidence of efficacy as determined by the FDA. Based on current data, the Company aims to seek accelerated approval for use of NRX-101 in patients with bipolar depression who exhibit suicidal ideation on currently approved medication.

4)

In the third quarter of 2025, the Company was made aware of dramatic findings suggesting that low-dose D-cycloserine (the key ingredient in NRX-101) may increase the antidepressant and antisuicidal effects of TMS by more than two-fold, as demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial and subsequently confirmed with real world experience and mechanistic studies. Accordingly, the Company has filed a protocol with the FDA to test the use of low-dose NRX-101 in conjunction with the one-day TMS protocol (ONE-D). Should this study demonstrate safety and efficacy, it could represent a dramatic expansion of the market for NRX-101 and have the potential to offer patients a rapid remission from severe depression and PTSD with a single day of treatment. Millions of Americans are expected to be treated with TMS in coming years. Success in this planned clinical trial would lead to a potential 2027 PDUFA date for this previously unanticipated indication.

In March 2026, the Company received IND comments from FDA which were related to various aspects of statistical design and ascertainment of study endpoints, but which accepted the clinical aspects of the study design. Accordingly, the Company anticipates initiating the clinical trial in Q2 2026. The Company currently anticipates non-dilutive funding to support this phase 2b/3 trial from a government agency that has provided a preliminary financial commitment, subject to finalization of the study budget.

In February 2024, NRx incorporated HOPE Therapeutics, with the intent of developing a medical care delivery organization focused on providing cutting-edge, comprehensive interventional psychiatric treatment with the most effective treatments available, including NMDA-targeted and other neuroplastic drugs, such as ketamine, Spravato and NRX-101, neuromodulatory devices, such as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), hyperbaric therapy, digital therapeutics, and medication management. During 2025, the Company developed the operating model for HOPE and made initial clinic acquisitions with funding from the B-Group (Dallas, TX). HOPE generated its first clinical revenue in Q4 2025 and currently operates in five locations in Florida with the expectation of operating in eight or more locations by the end of Q2 2026.

On December 2, 2024, HOPE formed HTX Management Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary organized as a Delaware limited liability company, for the purpose of supporting future operations associated with any acquired businesses.

On September 8, 2025, HOPE became a revenue-generating clinical enterprise through its completion of the previously announced acquisition of Dura Medical, LLC (Dura), a Florida limited liability company, and a revenue-generating clinical organization with locations in Naples and Ft. Myers, Florida. Founded in 2018, Dura offers precision-based interventional psychiatry services, including ketamine infusion therapy, TMS, Spravato®, stellate ganglion blocks, and psychotherapy.

On October 17, 2025, the Company completed the previously announced addition of Cohen and Associates, based in Sarasota, FL, to the HOPE Network with a strategic minority investment, which expanded HOPE’s footprint on the West Coast of Florida, and related appointment of Dr. Rebecca Cohen as HOPE’s Medical Director. On November 10, 2025, HOPE announced completion of clinical training on the Ampa Health TMS device and initiation of the ONE-D protocol at its Florida locations. The ONE-D protocol has been reported in the peer-reviewed literature to achieve 87% response and 72% remission from severe depression at 6 weeks following a single day of TMS treatment, combined with D-cycloserine. HOPE is the first clinical enterprise to offer this one-day treatment protocol in Florida and one of the first to offer this therapy nationwide.

In the process of this evolution, HOPE made the scientific decision to focus on delivery of focused TMS with neuro-navigation techniques that are guided by brain imaging. The Company believes that this is the approach that will best enable future therapies for PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Autism, and Alzheimer’s, in addition to the current treatment of depression, particularly when enhanced by D-cycloserine based drugs.

In February 2026, HOPE announced the appointment of Professor Joshua Brown, MD, PhD, of Harvard/Mclean to serve as its Chief Medical Innovation Officer, alongside Rebecca Cohen, MD, who serves as HOPE’s Medical Director. Dr. Brown is currently funded by the US National Institutes of Health and the Department of War Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for projects that advance the frontier of TMS, neuroplasticity, and the application of these techniques to Force Preparedness. The Company similarly signed a letter of intent to acquire an innovative treatment program that is currently demonstrating high rates of return to function among first-responders who are disabled by PTSD.

Throughout 2025 and in the subsequent period, key achievements by the Company in support of its overall mission to improve and save the lives of patients affected by central nervous system disorders including suicidal depression, chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia include the following:

Drug Development

KETAFREE

& NRX-100

●

Grant of Fast Track Designation for NRX-100 from the FDA for all indications and types of depression and related disorders based on its potential to satisfy an unmet medical need. This designation represents an approximately 10-fold expansion of the addressable market to 13 million Americans, compared to the original Fast Track Designation issued in 2017 for bipolar depression alone. The Designation letter contains a specific finding that NRX-100 addresses an “unmet medical need.” This is a specific qualifying requirement for the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher Program (CNPV).

KETAFREE

●

Completion of three manufactured registration lots for KETAFREE™. Completion of manufacturing readiness audit at Nephron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with no deficiencies identified. Stability data in hand sufficient to support three years of room temperature shelf life.

KETAFREE

●

Filing of Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher application for intravenous ketamine (NRX-100). Subsequently, the Company was invited to attend a closed-door listening session with the FDA Commissioner and senior staff.

KETAFREE

& NRX-100

●

Submission of stability data for NRX-100 to the manufacturing data on file with FDA sufficient to support three years of room temperature shelf stability for NRX-100.

KETAFREE

●

Submission of draft labeling for NRX-100 in the treatment of suicidal depression based on the Fast Track Designation received.

KETAFREE

●

Completion of three manufactured registration batches. Submission of stability data for NRX-100 to the manufacturing data on file with FDA sufficient to support three years of room temperature shelf stability.

NRX-100

●

Initiation of Real World Evidence analysis project with Osmind, Inc, to provide RWE on 65,000 patients treated with intravenous ketamine for depression compared to 6,000 patients treated with intranasal S-ketamine.

NRX-100

●

Type C meeting with FDA to align on submission of existing clinical trials as Substantial Evidence of Effectiveness together with RWE as confirmatory evidence of effectiveness.

NRX-100

●

Receipt of filing fee waiver from the FDA for NRX-100.

NRX-100

●

Filing of module 3 manufacturing data to support a New Drug Application for NRX-101 in the treatment of patients with suicidal bipolar depression and akathisia despite treatment with already-approved medication.

HOPE Therapeutics

●

Completed acquisition of Dura Medical and subsequent acquisition of an interest in Cohen and Associates, LLC with first clinical revenue recorded during third quarter of 2025.

●

Establishment of HOPE clinics in Naples, FL, Fort Meyers, FL, West Palm Beach, FL and Sarasota, FL (2) with locations under development in Boston, MD, Denver, CO, and other locations.

●

Appointment of Prof. Joshua Brown, MD, PhD, as Chief Medical Innovation Officer and Rebecca Cohen, MD, as HOPE Medical Director. Prof. Brown is currently funded under DARPA Phase 2 contracts to adapt TMS to meet the needs of Force Preparedness

●

Partnership initiation with neurocare AG, (Munich and Atlanta, GA) with clinical collaboration and collaboration on NRX-101 as therapy to enhance effectiveness of TMS.

●

Partnership with EMOBOT, Inc. (Paris, France) to deploy continuous patient monitoring of depression, PTSD, and suicidality across HOPE’s clinical footprint to support accountable care initiatives.

●

Development partnership with neurosurgical robotics manufacturer to support development of military-focused TMS technology in support of force preparedness.

●

Appointment of study lead (currently in contracting) for Department of War-funded deployment of military-grade TMS initiative including NRX-101 neuroplastic augmentation, robotic TMS, and precision neuronavigation.

Recent Developments

Leadership

In November 2024, the Board of NRx Pharmaceuticals announced the retirement of Stephen Willard, JD as Chief Executive Officer of NRx and the appointment of Jonathan C. Javitt, MD, MPH, the Company’s Chairman of the Board as interim CEO. The Board appointed Michael Abrams, MBA as its Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer in place of Richard Narido. In January 2026, the Board of Directors confirmed Dr. Javitt as permanent CEO.

Financing

In May 2025, the Company reinstated the at-the-market offering and increased the maximum aggregate offering amount and filed a prospectus supplement under the offering agreement for an aggregate of $20,000,000. During the year ended December 31, 2025, the Company sold an aggregate of 2,277,177 shares of Common Stock for approximately $6.54 million, net of $0.2 million in offering costs. Pursuant to the Anson Purchase Agreement, on January 28, 2025, the Company issued $5.4 million of Third Tranche Anson Notes at an 8% original issue discount for total cash proceeds of approximately $5.0 million. On August 18, 2025, the Company entered into the Second RD Purchase Agreement with certain accredited investors for the sale of an aggregate of 3,959,999 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, at a purchase price of $1.65 per share. The Second Registered Direct Offering closed on August 18, 2025, and resulted in net proceeds of approximately $6.2 million, after deducting placement agent fees and other offering-related expenses of approximately $0.3 million. On September 30, 2025, the 1,870,960 shares underlying Anson Warrants were exercised for cash proceeds of $3.09 million. Because the exercise proceeds were received subsequent to September 30, 2025, the Company recorded a subscription receivable asset of $3.09 million as of September 30, 2025. The exercise proceeds of $3.09 million were received on October 1, 2025.

Although no assurances can be given, management believes that it will be able to secure necessary financing to support and consummate both its previously announced acquisitions and potential future acquisition candidates, execute its business plan and achieve its projected revenue objectives.

Drug Development

NRX-100 – Preservative-Free Ketamine: NRX-100 and KETAFREE™

We have undertaken two paths to market for ketamine: a generic-approval path under an ANDA (KETAFREE™) to address the current generic market for ketamine and an innovative drug path under a New Drug Application (NDA) to develop ketamine for use in treating suicidal depression. The ANDA market is estimated at $750 million today and we anticipate entering this market in early to mid 2026. There is one ketamine-based drug currently marketed for treatment of depression and its manufacturer recently reported $1.6 billion in 2025 sales. With recent positive changes in the regulatory environment, we similarly anticipate entering the innovative market for ketamine in late 2026.

Our proprietary, preservative free formulation is the subject of a US patent filing that has potential to confer market exclusivity. In addition, we have filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA noting that the Benzethonium Chloride (BZT) preservative in ketamine is not GRAS and has not been demonstrated to be safe in the context of this product. Historically, BZT was added to ketamine to enable multidose use and multi-patient use from a single vial. Those uses are no longer common in US healthcare facilities. We have performed an extensive review of the toxicology literature around BZT and determined that the FDA no longer allows BZT to be used in hand cleansers and topical antiseptics. BZT is part of a class of quaternary amines that have been shown to be toxic to corneal and conjunctival cells. A related compound in this class, Benzalkonium Chloride, has been removed from many eyedrops because of this demonstrated toxicity. The toxicology review link suggests that while single dose administration of preserved ketamine is generally thought of as safe, the cumulative dose of BZT with repeated intravenous administration may approach a toxicologically-concerning exposure to this compound.

1 Toxicological Evaluation of Benzethonium Chloride in Ketamine Formulations. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16883346)

In general, we anticipate that a preservative-free form of ketamine will be welcomed by physicians and patients, which may enable NRX-100 to gain a larger share of the existing ketamine market than would be available to an undifferentiated product. However, should the Citizens Petition be granted the share of the generic market captured by NRX-100 could be considerably higher.

The first filing of the ANDA in June 2025 received a “Refuse to Receive” letter from the FDA primarily based on a difference in the concentration of a single inactive ingredient (sodium chloride) between the NRX-100 formulation and the reference formulation of KETALAR®. The Company met with leadership of the Office of Generic Drugs and agreed to adjust the sodium chloride concentration to within 5% of the reference product. The ANDA was refiled in September 2025, and the Company received a letter in November 2025 identifying only several minor administrative discrepancies, all of which have now been addressed without starting a new regulatory cycle. The Company is aware of no impediments to an acceptance of the ANDA package and anticipates regulatory action in the summer of 2026.

The KETAFREE™ ANDA was refiled in September 2025, and the Company received a letter in November 2025 with a notice that FDA had received the file and assigning a summer 2026 decision date under the Generic Drug User Fee Act (GDUFA). In March 2026, the company received a notice from the Bioequivalence Discipline Unit in the FDA Office of Generic Drugs identifying no bioequivalence deficiencies between KETAFREE™ and the Reference Listed Drug KETALAR®.

Our path to New Drug Approval of Ketamine for treatment of depression was substantially augmented on August 8, 2025 by award of an expanded Fast Track Designation (FTD) to NRX-100 by the FDA Division of Psychiatry Products. Originally, in 2017, the FDA awarded FTD to NRX-100 in association with NRX-101 for the treatment of suicidal bipolar depression. During 2025, the FDA gave a far broader Fast Track Designation to NRX-100, designating it for “Treatment of suicidal ideation in depression, including bipolar depression,” According to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 3.6 million Americans contemplate suicide each year, with 1.5 million attempting suicide and an American dying of suicide every 11 minutes.

NRx previously guided that it intended to seek only accelerated approval of NRX-100. On February 11, 2026, the Company conducted a Type C meeting with FDA leadership, represented by the Deputy Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, and the Director of the FDA Division of Psychiatry Products. FDA guided the Company to seek full NDA approval, rather than accelerated approval for NRX-100. FDA further guided the Company to broaden the indication for NRX-100 to patients with severe depression (including bipolar depression) who may have suicidal ideation rather than the smaller population of those who have active suicidal ideation. FDA agreed to review patient-level data from already-completed clinical trials for Substantial Evidence of Efficacy and did not ask the Company to conduct additional clinical trials. FDA further agreed to review Real World Evidence developed in partnership with Osmind, Inc. as confirmatory evidence of efficacy.

NRx intends to seek accelerated approval of NRX-100. The data that have been licensed from the Government of France and Columbia University demonstrate that intravenous ketamine is superior to placebo and to active placebo in reducing suicidal ideation and depression within hours and has an effect duration of about a week. The PCORI-funded trial of ketamine versus ECT demonstrates non-inferiority to ECT on depression over a 6-month period Although PCORI demonstrated ketamine to be non-inferior in reducing depression, it was vastly superior with regard to safety, with 30% of those treated with ECT reporting memory loss compared to 0% of those treated with ketamine. The Company believes that these data together with additional already-conducted trials are sufficient for an FDA grant of initial market access subject to confirmatory data. However, longer term data are desirable for a drug that may ultimately be used in millions of patients each year. Additional detail regarding established ketamine efficacy data is noted below.

In addition to the experimental data shown above, the Company will be presenting Real World Data from two sources that capture medical record information from approximately 70,000 and 1,200 patients, respectively. An example drawn from the first 20,000 such patients examined is depicted below and suggests that the effect of ketamine seen in Real World Data is consistent with the results observed in randomized clinical trials. Unlike the randomized trials that compared ketamine to placebo and active comparator, the Real World Data also compares intravenous ketamine to intranasal SPRAVATO® with favorable findings.

Under the regular approval pathway, a Company is obligated to provide confirmatory data of safety and efficacy within five years, as would be required of accelerated approval. However, to further enhance the NRX-100 label in future years, NRx has contracted with the PCORI sponsors of a 450-person randomized non-inferiority trial of intravenous racemic ketamine compared to intranasal S-ketamine. The Company expects that NRX-100 will prove to be non-inferior to intranasal S-ketamine in reducing symptoms of depression and may prove superior in reducing symptoms of suicidality.

NRX-101: Original indication in Bipolar Depression

During the fiscal year 2025 and in subsequent events, management has focused on preparing the NDA of NRX-101, submitting more than 80,000 pages of manufacturing, non-clinical, and clinical material in July 2025. Breakthrough Therapy Designation was awarded to NRX-101 by the FDA in 2018.

As noted previously, NRX-101 demonstrated a statistically-significant benefit in reduction of suicidality and reduction of akathisia in a randomized, well-controlled trial against lurasidone. These findings confirm the initial results reported in the Company’s STABIL-B trial. The Company anticipates filing an NDA for Accelerated Approval of NRX-101 for treatment of “Suicidal Bipolar Depression in patients with Akathisia and Active Suicidal Ideation despite standard of care therapy.” NRX-101 is the only oral medicine that has ever been demonstrated in two randomized trials to reduce active suicidality and akathisia, to the Company’s knowledge. The Company is in active discussion with an academic medical center that has already demonstrated leadership in the successful phase 2 trial to conduct the confirmatory research required post Accelerated Approval under an already-funded national multicenter trial. The Company is currently seeking a second PDUFA fee waiver from the FDA on the grounds of overwhelming public health need.

NRX-101: New indication in augmenting the effects of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS).

In the third quarter of 2025, the Company identified a promising new indication for NRX-101 that potentially offers rapid path to commercialization for this Breakthrough Therapy-designated drug. Recent evidence suggests that NRX-101 may confer a significant added advantage to the clinical results of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.2 Cole and colleagues reported that patients randomized to DCS versus placebo concurrent with TMS using a standard protocol experienced a greater than two-fold benefit in terms of reduction in symptoms of depression. Clinical response of 75% and remission of 40% was seen in the DCS-treated group.

A substantial body of nonclinical literature has been published in subsequent years demonstrating that DCS at low doses exerts a neuroplasticity effect and causes dendritic sprouting in areas of the brain associated with depression.

On November 4, 2025, Real World Data were presented in conjunction with a one day TMS protocol, combined with a single administration of oral DCS.3 The authors reported 87% clinical response and 72% remission manifesting at six weeks after a single day of treatment on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with similar findings on other standard test measures.

2 Cole J, et.al. Efficacy of Adjunctive D-Cycloserine to Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79(12):1153–1161. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.3255

3 Vaughn, Donald & Marino, Brooke & Engelbertson, Alex & Dojnov, Aleksandra & Weiss, Nick & Vila-Rodriguez, Fidel & Nanos, Georgine & Downar, Jonathan. (2024). Real-world effectiveness of a single-day regimen for transcranial magnetic stimulation using Optimized, Neuroplastogen-Enhanced techniques in Depression (ONE-D). 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5679327/v1.

Although the above studies were conducted with DCS alone, the Seromycin® (D-cycloserine) label lists a clear contra-indication for the use of DCS in patients with depression. That contraindication was part of the basis for the agreement between NRx and the FDA to combine DCS and lurasidone into NRX-101 and the FDA’s decision to assign an indication for NRX-101 together with Breakthrough Therapy Designation in the treatment of Bipolar Depression.

Based on the above findings, the Company is now planning a phase 3 registration trial for the use of NRX-101 versus placebo in conjunction with Theta-burst TMS. The trial is expected to be funded via non-dilutive funding from a governmental source. Based on the rapid adoption of accelerated TMS and the dramatic results seen, we estimate that between 1 and 3 million Americans will receive TMS for depression annually. The Company holds numerous compositions of matter and method patents on the use of NRX-101 that have the potential to create a substantial period of market exclusivity should the drug be approved.

HOPE Therapeutics: Operating Progress

In September 2025, NRx consummated, through its HOPE subsidiary, its first clinic acquisition (Dura) leading to its first revenue from operations. Note that the revenue shown on the financial statement represents only three weeks and one quarter of clinical revenue and that revenues are expected to grow as more clinical footprint is acquired. In October 2025, the NRx, through its HOPE subsidiary, completed the acquisition of a minority interest in Cohen & Associates.

During the fourth quarter of 2025, NRx became the first clinical entity to partner with Ampa Health in the State of Florida and one of the first nationwide. The Ampa device is unique because of the results demonstrated with the ONE-D protocol and the dramatic rate of clinical response (87%) and remission (72%) seen when this TMS device is combined with the key ingredient of NRX-101. The Company is in active acquisition mode and is also establishing partnerships with TMS providers that could enable HOPE to enter into a Medical Services Organization (MSO) structure with partner entities.

In addition to the Company-acquired clinics, HOPE has opened two clinical facilities in Florida that are finalizing clinical staffing and regulatory approval. The Company is in the process of establishing new clinical facilities in Boston, MA, and Denver, CO.

In January 2026, NRx announced a partnership with neurocare AG, the manufacturer of the Apollo TMS device, to combine efforts on developing clinical sites in the United States. The Companies aim to leverage the owned clinical facilities of the partners (5 HOPE and 14 neurocare) and the footprint of 400 installed Apollo TMS sites in the United States to offer an integrated network of sites offering neuroplastic therapy including ketamine and other neuroplastic drugs, TMS, Hyperbaric Therapy, and psychotherapy/medication management.

Human Capital

As of December 31, 2025, the Company had approximately 29 full-time employees.

NRx Patent Portfolio

I.

Glytech-licensed Patents/Patent Applications

Jurisdiction

Patent/Appl.

No.

Status/Notes

USA

9,737,531

Granted

USA

9,486,453

Granted

USA

10,660,887

Granted

European Patent Convention

EP 2 872 139

Granted; validated in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Great Britain

European Patent Convention

EP 3 263 108

Granted; validated in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Great Britain

Japan

JP 6416762

Granted

Australia

AU 2013288827

Granted

Australia

AU 2018203371

Granted

China

CN 104507477

Granted

China

CN 107875389

Granted

USA

16/166,101

Pending

Israel

IL 271371

Pending

USA

US 11,576,911

Granted

European Patent Convention

EP 18731195.6

Pending

Japan

JP 7305560

Granted

Japan

JP 2023-105697

Pending

Canada

CA 3,067,162

Pending

Australia

AU 2018284335

Pending

Brazil

BR 11 2019 026449 3

Pending

Mexico

MX/393,950

Granted

South Korea

KR 10-2609676

Granted

South Africa

ZA 2019/08616

Granted

New Zealand

NZ 760542

Pending

New Zealand

NZ 799961

Pending

Israel

IL 270916

Pending

USA

17/586,828

Pending

Japan

JP 7308761

Granted

Canada

CA 3,064,846

Pending

Australia

AU 2018274767

Pending

Brazil

BR 11 2019 024802-1

Pending

Mexico

394,875

Granted

South Korea

10-2608479

Granted

South Africa

ZA 2019/08617

Granted

New Zealand

NZ 760544

Pending

II.

SHMH-licensed Patents and Patent Applications

Jurisdiction

Patent/Appl. No.

Status/Notes

USA

9,789,093

Granted

Europe

EP 2 670 409

Granted; validated in Switzerland, Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands

USA

17/502,606

Pending

USA

11,013,721

Granted

Canada

CA 2,826,180

Granted

Israel

IL 227611

Granted

NeuroRx-owned Patents and Patent Applications

Jurisdiction

Patent/Appl. No.

Status/Notes

USA

10,583,138

Granted

Manufacturing Agreements

In 2022, the Company has entered into a manufacturing agreement with Alcami (Wilmington, NC) for the manufacturing of NRX-101. This enabled the technology transfer of manufacturing processes previously done in China to the U.S. In October of 2022 the Company submitted a Module 3 IND amendment to the FDA, allowing it to manufacture clinical supplies in the U.S.

In December 2022, as part of our agreement with Relief Therapeutics we transferred all manufacturing rights and know-how that we acquired for ZYESAMI (aviptadil) to Relief, including our collaborations with Nephron Pharmaceuticals and Alcami as contract manufacturers, and with the Polypeptide Group as a supplier of active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”). This technology transfer does not affect our ability to contract with Alcami and Nephron for other purposes.

In 2023, the Company entered into a development and manufacturing agreement with Nephron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the manufacture of ketamine HCl (NRX-100, HTX-100) that the Company intends to distribute via its HOPE franchise. Manufacture will initially consist of the generic formulation of ketamine in a novel diversion-resistant presentation. Under the development portion of the agreement the Company intends to develop a pH-balanced new formulation of ketamine that will be suitable for subcutaneous use and that may be suitable for oral administration with predictable systemic absorption.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the U.S. and in other countries, at the Federal, state and local level, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export, pricing, and government contracting related to pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the U.S. and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Government Regulation

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate Federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions or other actions, such as the FDA’s delay in review of or refusal to approve a pending NDA, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or study termination, issuance of Warning Letters or Untitled Letters, mandated modifications to promotional materials or issuance of corrective information, requests for product recalls, consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow product import or export, total or partial suspension of or restriction of or imposition of other requirements relating to production or distribution, injunctions, fines, debarment from government contracts and refusal of future orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, FDA debarment, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

The process required by the FDA before a new drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

●

completion of pre-clinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice regulations;

●

submission to the FDA of an FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) application which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

●

approval by local or central IRBs who are charged with protecting safety of research subjects before each clinical trial may be initiated;

●

performance of human studies that meet the legal standard of “adequate and well-controlled clinical trials”, in accordance with Current Good Clinical Practices (cGCP) and other regulations in order to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each indication;

●

submission to the FDA of an NDA;

●

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

●

satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of selected clinical trial sites to determine GCP compliance;

●

satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with GMP regulations and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; and

●

FDA review and approval of the NDA.

Additionally, if a drug is considered a controlled substance, prior to the commencement of marketing, the DEA must also determine the controlled substance schedule, taking into account the recommendation of the FDA.

Preclinical Studies and IND Submission

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. Once the IND is submitted, the sponsor must wait 30 calendar days before initiating any clinical trials. During this time, among other things, the FDA has an opportunity to review the IND for safety to assure that research subjects will not be subjected to unreasonable risk. The FDA may raise concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and place the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Implications for NRX-100/101

We have filed INDs and the FDA has accepted INDs 134025 and 129194 for NRX-100 and NRX-101 respectively. The FDA has advised us that no further preclinical studies are needed for submission of an NDA for NRX-100. The FDA has advised us, and we have agreed that a genotoxicity study and a non-clinical maternal/fetal study for potential fetal effects are required prior to filing of an NDA for NRX-101. Furthermore, drugs that are potentially used chronic or chronic/intermittently do need to show preclinical carcinogenicity studies. Based on our latest FDA interactions we may be required to do so, even if our initial target indication is for 6 weeks. However, FDA indicated that they would review our request for an exemption, which we intend to submit.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the IND to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with cGCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial, and review and approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the trial procedures, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, and a statistical analysis plan. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, a central or local IRB at 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 continue to oversee the clinical trial, including any changes, while it is being conducted. Information about certain clinical trials, including a description of the study and study results, must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on their clinicaltrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential Phases, which may overlap or be combined. In Phase 1, the drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or subjects 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. In Phase 2, the drug typically is administered through well-controlled studies to a limited subject population with the target disease or condition 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. In Phase 3, the drug is administered to an expanded subject population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. Furthermore, depending on the expected use of a drug (e.g., acute, intermittent, chronic), regulatory requirements may include a safety database that goes beyond the number of subjects in the efficacy studies.

The manufacture of investigational drugs for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) requirements. Investigational drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients imported into the U.S. are also subject to regulation by the FDA relating to their labeling and distribution. Further, the export of investigational drug products outside of the U.S. is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FFDCA.

Progress reports and other summary information detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if certain unexpected Serious Adverse Events occur or other significant safety information is found. Phase I, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or the trial is not being conducted in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements or the protocol. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board (DSMB) or data monitoring committee (DMC). This group regularly reviews accumulated data and advises the study sponsor regarding the continuing safety of trial subjects, potential trial subjects, and the continuing validity and scientific merit of the clinical trial. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

Implications for NRX-100/101

In the case of NRX-100/101, the FDA has agreed with us in writing that the investigational product meets the standards for a 505.b.2 (commonly called drug-repurposing) pathway, whereby the extensive safety literature regarding the individual components of NRX-101 may be cited in lieu of repeating various preclinical and Phase I clinical studies.

Because of examples in recent years where sponsors have received Complete Response Letters based on lack of agreement with the FDA regarding the research path required for NDA submission, we worked collaboratively with the FDA for one year in order to negotiate a FDA SPA that would govern the development of NRX-101 and would define the Phase 2I trial required for the target indication., should the clinical trial be successful. This FDA SPA was issued to us in April 2018 and defines the single clinical trial required for submission of NRX-101 for treatment of bipolar depression with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. In addition to the defined requirements in the FDA SPA, the FDA may require additional clinical safety data, especially if the use of the drug could be intermittent or chronic/intermittent as deemed by the FDA. As mentioned before, we recently received written guidance from the FDA that the Company is evaluating.

Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee. These user fees must be filed at the time of the first submission of the application, even if the application is being submitted on a rolling basis. A waiver from the application user fee may be sought by an applicant. One basis for a waiver of the application user fee is if the applicant employs fewer than 500 employees, including employees of affiliates, the applicant does not have a drug product that has been approved under a human drug application and introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, and the applicant, including its affiliates, is submitting its first human drug application. Under the PDUFA guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals regarding the timing of its review of an application. The FDA aims to review 90% of all standard review applications within ten months of acceptance for filing and six months of acceptance for filing for priority review applications.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, an NDA, or supplement to an NDA, for a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosage regimen or route of administration must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

The FDA may also require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program either during the application process or after the approval of the drug to ensure the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk tracking and minimization tools.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity.

Under the FFDCA, before approving a drug for which no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of active ingredients) has previously been approved by the FDA, the FDA must either refer that drug to an external advisory committee or provide in an action letter, a summary of the reasons why the FDA did not refer the drug to an advisory committee. The external advisory committee review may also be required for other drugs because of certain other issues, including clinical trial design, safety and effectiveness, and public health questions. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to ensure consistent production of the product within required specifications by the manufacturer and all of its subcontractors and contract manufacturers. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect one or more clinical trial sites to ensure compliance with GCP regulations.

The testing and approval process for an NDA requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing is not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval. The FDA may not grant approval of an NDA on a timely basis, or at all.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing, or other information, in order for FDA to reconsider the application. The FDA has a review goal of completing its review of 90% of resubmissions within two or six months after receipt, 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 and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA may issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a black boxed warning, require that post-approval studies, including Phase IV clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post- marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, certain circumstances may require FDA notification, review, or approval, as well as further testing. These may include some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, or new safety information.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, accelerated approval, priority review and Breakthrough Therapy (as defined below) designation, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions, and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs or present a significant improvement over existing therapy. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a Fast Track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if the product will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy, safety, or public health factors. If Fast Track designation is obtained, drug sponsors may be eligible for more frequent development meetings and correspondence with the FDA. In addition, the FDA may initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the applicant provides and the FDA approves a schedule for the remaining information.

In some cases, a Fast Track product may be eligible for accelerated approval or priority review.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that are intended to treat serious conditions and provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA is to review an application in six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines. These six- and ten-month review periods are measured from the “filing” date rather than the receipt date for NDAs, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review and decision from the date of submission. Products that are eligible for Fast Track designation may also be considered appropriate to receive a priority review.

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses or conditions and that fill an unmet medical need may be eligible for accelerated approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoints, and the drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

Moreover, under the provisions of the new Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act enacted in 2012, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a “Breakthrough Therapy.” A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as Breakthrough Therapies are eligible for the Fast Track designation features as described above, intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program beginning as early as Phase I trials, and a commitment from the FDA to involve senior managers and experienced review staff in a proactive collaborative, cross-disciplinary review.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Implications for NRX-101

Subsequent to the issuance of the FDA SPA, in November 2018, the FDA also issued a Breakthrough Therapy designation to NRX-101. Breakthrough Therapy designation is awarded to drugs that have demonstrated preliminary evidence of efficacy for the treatment of a serious medical condition for which there is an unmet medical need.

Post-Approval Requirements

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

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

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies and list drugs manufactured at their facilities with the FDA. These facilities are further subject to periodically announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other regulatory requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and may require prior approval by the FDA or notification to the FDA before or after 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 becomes available in the market.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

●

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

●

fines, Warning Letters or Untitled Letters, holds or termination of post-approval clinical trials or FDA debarment;

●

delay or refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;

●

regulatory authority, including the FDA, issued safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases or other communications containing warnings about such products;

●

mandated modifications to promotional material or issuance of corrective information;

●

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

●

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties, including imprisonment, disgorgement and restitution, as well as consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, deferred prosecution agreements and exclusion from federal healthcare programs.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Although physicians in the practice of medicine may prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications, pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from marketing or promoting their drug products for uses outside of the approved indications in the approved prescribing information. 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 marketed or promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including criminal and civil penalties under the FFDCA and False Claims Act, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, debarment from government contracts and refusal of future orders under existing contracts, and mandatory compliance programs under corporate integrity agreements or deferred prosecution agreements.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products, including samples, is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA), which, among other things, regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug 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.

Moreover, the recently enacted Drug Quality and Security Act imposes new obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Among the requirements of this new legislation, manufacturers will be required to provide certain information regarding drug products to individuals and entities to which product ownership is transferred, label drug products with a product identifier, and keep certain records regarding drug products. The transfer of information to subsequent product owners by manufacturers will eventually be required to be done electronically. Manufacturers will also be required to verify that purchasers of the manufacturers’ products are appropriately licensed. Further, under this new legislation, manufactures will have drug product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and FDA and trading partner notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products such that they would result in serious adverse health consequences or death, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death.

Regulation under the Drug Enforcement Administration

We are required to evaluate the abuse potential of our product candidates. If any of our product candidates are considered controlled substances, we will need to comply with additional regulatory requirements. NRX-100 (ketamine) is a controlled substance with high abuse potential. Both components of NRX-101 are approved drugs (DCS and lurasidone) and neither is a controlled substance. We have completed abuse liability studies for DCS and identified no abuse potential.

Certain drug products may be regulated as “controlled substances” as defined in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the DEA’s implementing regulations. The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use, and may not be marketed or sold in the U.S. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. The FDA provides a recommendation to the DEA as to whether a drug should be classified as a controlled substance and the appropriate level of control. If DEA scheduling is required, a drug product may not be marketed until the scheduling process is completed, which could delay the launch of the product.

Depending on the Schedule, drug products may be subject to registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation, inventory, quota and other requirements administered by the DEA, which are directly applicable to product applicants, contract manufacturers and to distributors, prescribers and dispensers of controlled substances. The DEA regulates the handling of controlled substances through a closed chain of distribution. This control extends to the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized. Similarly, separate registrations are also required for separate facilities.

The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration and on a periodic basis. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports may be required to made to the DEA for the distribution of certain controlled substances. Reports must also be made for thefts or significant losses of any controlled substance. To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings or consent decrees. Individual states also independently regulate controlled substances.

Federal and State Healthcare related, Fraud and Abuse and Data Privacy and Security Laws and Regulations

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, federal and state fraud and abuse, and other laws regulations, and requirements restrict business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. These laws include anti-kickback and false claims laws and regulations, state and federal transparency laws regarding payments or other items of value provided to health care professionals, as well as data privacy and security laws and regulations and other requirements applicable to the healthcare industry, including pharmaceutical manufacturers. There are also laws, regulations, and requirements applicable to the award and performance of federal contracts and grants.

The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are narrowly drawn. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not meet the requirements of a statutory or regulatory exception or safe harbor. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the statute has been violated.

The reach of the Anti-Kickback Statute was also broadened by the Affordable Care Act, which, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain provisions of the criminal health care fraud statute (discussed below) such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the Affordable Care Act provides that the government may assert that a claim for payment for items or services resulting from a violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act. Penalties for violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute include criminal fines, imprisonment, civil penalties and damages, exclusion from participation in Federal healthcare programs and corporate integrity agreements or deferred prosecution agreements. Conviction or civil judgments are also grounds for debarment from government contracts.

The Federal Civil False Claims Act prohibits any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the U.S. Government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, including payments under a federal grant. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. Government. The False Claims Act also applies to false submissions that cause the government to be paid less than the amount to which it is entitled, such as a rebate. Intent to deceive is not required to establish liability under the civil False Claims Act. Several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been sued under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill Federal programs for the product. Companies have also been sued for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of products for unapproved, or off-label, uses. In addition, Federal health care programs require drug manufacturers to report drug pricing information, which is used to quantify discounts and establish reimbursement rates. Several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been sued for reporting allegedly false pricing information, which caused the manufacturer to understate rebates owed or, when used to determine reimbursement rates, caused overpayment to providers. Violations of the civil False Claims Act may result in civil penalties and damages as well as exclusion from Federal healthcare programs and corporate integrity agreements or deferred prosecution agreements. The U.S. Government may further prosecute conduct constituting a false claim under the criminal False Claims Act. The criminal False Claims Act prohibits the making or presenting of a claim to the U.S. Government knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent and, unlike the civil False Claims Act, requires proof of intent to submit a false claim. Violations of the criminal False Claims Act can result in criminal fines and/or imprisonment, as well as exclusion from participation in Federal healthcare programs. Conviction or civil judgments and other conduct are also grounds for debarment from U.S. Government contracts and grants.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) also created Federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. As discussed above, the Affordable Care Act amended the intent standard for certain of HIPAA’s healthcare fraud provisions such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations of HIPAA’s fraud and abuse provisions may result in fines or imprisonment, as well as exclusion from participation in Federal healthcare programs, depending on the conduct in question. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a Federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The Veterans Health Care Act requires manufacturers of covered drugs to offer them for sale on the Federal Supply Schedule, which requires compliance with applicable Federal procurement laws and regulations and subjects us to contractual remedies as well as administrative, civil and criminal sanctions.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased Federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and other health care providers. The Affordable Care Act created new Federal requirements for reporting, by applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and other healthcare providers and their immediate family members. Certain states also require implementation of commercial compliance programs and compliance with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. Government, or otherwise restrict payments or the provision of other items of value that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; impose restrictions on marketing practices; and/or require drug manufacturers to track and report information related to payments, gifts and other items of value to physicians and other healthcare providers.

We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the U.S. Government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH) and its implementing regulations, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Penalties for violating HIPAA include civil penalties, criminal penalties and imprisonment. Among other things, HITECH, through its implementing regulations, makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as a person or organization, other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce, that creates, receives, maintains or transmits protected health information on behalf of a covered entity for a function or activity regulated by HIPAA. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in Federal courts to enforce the Federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing Federal civil actions.

In addition, other Federal and state laws govern the privacy and security of health and other information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same requirements, thus complicating compliance efforts.

To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Coverage and Reimbursement

The commercial success of our product candidates and our ability to commercialize any approved product candidates successfully will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payers provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our therapeutic product candidates. In the U.S., the European Union and other potentially significant markets for our product candidates, government authorities and third-party payers are increasingly imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage, attempting to limit reimbursement levels or regulate the price of drugs and other medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which often has resulted in average selling prices lower than they would otherwise be. For example, in the U.S., Federal and state governments reimburse covered prescription drugs at varying rates generally below average wholesale price. Federal programs also impose price controls through mandatory ceiling prices on purchases by federal agencies and federally funded hospitals and clinics and mandatory rebates on retail pharmacy prescriptions paid by Medicaid and Tricare. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government programs may result in lower reimbursement for our product candidates or exclusion of our product candidates from coverage. Moreover, the Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payers and other governmental payers develop their coverage and reimbursement policies.

In addition, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the U.S. and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the European Union will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and utilization, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, competition within therapeutic classes, availability of generic equivalents, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, coverage and reimbursement policies and pricing in general. The cost containment measures that healthcare payers and providers are instituting and any healthcare reform implemented in the future could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any approved product candidates. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain and maintain third-party coverage or adequate reimbursement for our product candidates in whole or in part.

Impact of Healthcare Reform on Coverage, Reimbursement, and Pricing

The Medicare Modernization Act imposed new requirements for the distribution and pricing of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription, pharmacy drugs pursuant to federal regulations. Part D plans include both standalone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. In general, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors have flexibility regarding coverage of Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class, with certain exceptions. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for any products for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our future products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be discounted, thereby lowering the net price realized on our sales to pharmacies. Moreover, while the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payers often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from Medicare Part D may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payers.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the U.S. Government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. A plan for the research will be developed by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the NIH, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures will be made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payers, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of any product, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a study. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates. If third-party payers do not consider our product candidates to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our product candidates, once approved, as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

The U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions are considering enacting or have enacted a number of additional legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payers in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access. In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives, including, most recently, the Affordable Care Act, which became law in March 2010 and substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among other cost containment measures, the Affordable Care Act establishes an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program; expansion of Medicaid benefits and a new formula that increases the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; and expansion of the 340B drug discount program that mandates discounts to certain hospitals, community centers and other qualifying providers. In the future, there may continue to be additional proposals relating to the reform of the U.S. healthcare system, some of which could further limit the prices we are able to charge or the amounts of reimbursement available for our product candidates once they are approved.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to comply with accounting provisions requiring us to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Activities that violate the FCPA, even if they occur wholly outside the U.S., can result in criminal and civil fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, oversight, and debarment from government contracts. The FCPA is currently under a temporary pause in enforcement. This pause was initiated by an executive order from President Trump on February 10, 2025 for a 180-day period. The order aims to reassess the guidelines and policies surrounding FCPA investigations and enforcement actions with a focus on promoting U.S. economic competitiveness and national security.

Exclusivity and Approval of Competing Products

Hatch-Waxman Patent Exclusivity

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or a method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA. Generally, an ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths, dosage form and route of administration as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent through in vitro or in vivo testing or otherwise to the listed drug. ANDA applicants are not required to conduct or submit results of preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product, other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug. 505(b)(2) NDAs generally are submitted for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form or indication.

The ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is required to provide a certification to the FDA in the product application concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the applicant is not seeking approval. Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

●

the required patent information has not been filed;

●

the listed patent has expired;

●

the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or

●

the listed patent is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the new product.

Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except when the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent or if the listed patent is a patented method of use for which approval is not being sought. A certification that the proposed 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. We may seek Paragraph IV Certification for our product candidates. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or does not indicate that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA 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 application 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 notice of the Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant or other period determined by a court.

Hatch-Waxman Non-Patent Exclusivity

Market and data exclusivity provisions under the FFDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications for competing products. The FFDCA provides a five-year period of non- patent data exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity.

A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

The FFDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA or 505(b)(2) NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application or supplement. Three-year exclusivity may be awarded for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosages, strengths or dosage forms of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well- controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the U.S. and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent exclusivity period described above. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly responds to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data does 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, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent protection that cover the drug are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application owing to regulatory exclusivity or listed patents.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for the development of drugs intended to treat rare diseases or conditions, which generally are diseases or conditions affecting less than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S., or affecting more than 200,000 in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug available in the U.S. will be recovered from U.S. sales.

Additionally, sponsors must present a plausible hypothesis for clinical superiority to obtain orphan drug designation if there is a drug already approved by the FDA that is intended for the same indication and that is considered by the FDA to be the same drug as the already approved drug. This hypothesis must be demonstrated to obtain orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical study costs, tax advantages, and user fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan drug designation, the product is generally entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity.

Foreign Regulation

In order to market any product outside of the U.S., we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of our products. For example, in the European Union, we must obtain authorization of a clinical trial application in each member state in which we intend to conduct a clinical trial. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

European Union Drug Approval Process

To obtain marketing authorization of a drug in the European Union, we may submit marketing authorization applications (MAAs) either under the so-called centralized or national authorization procedures.

Centralized procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization following a favorable opinion by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) that is valid in all European Union member states, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions. The centralized procedure is optional for products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee of Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop-clocks.

National authorization procedures

There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several European Union countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

●

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

●

Mutual recognition procedure. In the mutual recognition procedure, a medicine is first authorized in one European Union Member State, in accordance with the national procedures of that country. Following this, further marketing authorizations can be sought from other European Union countries in a procedure whereby the countries concerned agree to recognize the validity of the original, national marketing authorization.

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

Available Information

The Company’s internet address is https://www.nrxpharma.com. The Company makes available, free of charge, on its website the copies of the Company’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The content of the Company’s website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in any other report or document it files with the SEC, and any references to the Company’s website is intended to be inactive textual references only.