NASDAQ: SCYX

SCY-247 Development Update

We continue to progress the development activities for SCY-247 and recently completed the single and multiple ascending dose portions of our ongoing Phase 1 study of oral SCY-247 in 88 healthy subjects. The study evaluated the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of orally administered SCY-247 in healthy participants receiving single ascending doses (SAD) ranging from 50mg to 900mg and multiple ascending doses (MAD) ranging from 50mg to 300mg, once a day for 7 days. Each dose level was evaluated in eight participants, with six participants receiving SCY-247 and two receiving a matching placebo. A total of 66 participants received SCY-247 and 22 received placebo in the SAD and MAD cohorts.

SCY-247 was well tolerated across all evaluated SAD and MAD cohorts. No serious or severe treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported. The incidence of TEAEs was low and not dose-dependent, with all events being mild or moderate in severity. One participant discontinued the study due to an adverse event that was deemed not to be related to the study drug.

SCY-247 showed generally dose-proportional pharmacokinetics following single and multiple oral doses. The drug was rapidly absorbed (Tmax ranging from three to seven hours), and systemic exposure (Cmax and AUC) increased proportionally for doses up to 400mg QD and less than proportional for doses higher than 400mg QD. The MAD cohorts of 200mg and 300mg once-daily achieved or exceeded the preliminary target for efficacious exposure, based on preclinical models of invasive candidiasis (IC) available to date, including models with strains such as Candida auris and echinocandin-resistant Candida glabrata that are resistant to current antifungal treatment options. Overall, the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profile observed in this study support the continued clinical development of SCY-247.

We intend to progress the development of SCY-247 towards addressing significant unmet needs in the antifungal space that also represent attractive commercial opportunities. We have initiated a Phase 1 study with the intravenous formulation of SCY-247 in the first quarter of 2026. The clinical proof-of-concept Phase 2 study of SCY-247 is currently planned for 2026 in patients with IC. Subsequent stages of development for SCY-247 are anticipated to include studies adequate to support an IC treatment indication, as well as evaluating SCY-247 for the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFI) in patients at high risk.

SCY-247 Target Product Profile

SCY-247, the second agent in a novel antifungal class, acts through the inhibition of the glucan synthase complex, an established target in antifungal therapeutics. SCY-247 is being developed as oral and intravenous formulations and has demonstrated potent activity against a large collection of medically relevant strains of Candida and Aspergillus genera, including multidrug-resistant strains, as well as Pneumocystis, Coccidioides, Histoplasma and Blastomyces genera. Additionally, SCY-247 has shown in vitro, and in vivo activity against multidrug-resistant organisms such as Candida auris and synergistic/additive activity in combination with amphotericin B against fungi causing mucormycosis. SCY-247 has unique attributes that define its potential to address significant unmet medical needs and provide considerable commercial opportunities, including:

•
oral bioavailability, allowing for convenient long-term outpatient use;

5

•
activity against azole-resistant and most echinocandin-resistant Candida strains, including Candida auris and multidrug-resistant strains;

•
activity against azole-resistant Aspergillus strains;

•
fungicidal (i.e., killing the fungi) capabilities against the Candida genus compared to azoles, which are fungistatic (i.e., only inhibiting the growth of fungi);

•
high tissue penetration, allowing high concentrations in the organs commonly affected by fungal infections; and

•
half-life adequate for once a day oral dosing with a low risk of drug-drug interactions.

We believe that SCY-247, if approved, has the potential to address significant gaps with commercially available therapies in the following indications:

•
IC, including resistant infections. IC is a systemic infection by fungi of the Candida spp. genus that typically affects patients in the hospital that are either immunocompromised or undergoing invasive procedures. It is the most common type of invasive fungal infection; can affect the blood, liver, spleen, pleural space, and other organs and the mortality remains very high (i.e., >30%). The recommended treatment for most cases is intravenous echinocandins, with a potential to step-down to oral azoles when the Candida strains are susceptible. Antifungal treatment duration typically ranges from two to six weeks. With an increased frequency of antifungal resistance among several Candida species including C. auris, C. glabrata, C .krusei, C. parapsilosis current antifungal treatment gaps include lack of oral options for azole-resistant strains, safe and well tolerated options for echinocandin-resistant strains, an antifungal with broad and potent anti-Candida activity covering all strains for cases where the susceptibility of the Candida spp. causing the infection is unknown. Amphotericin B may be an option to treat IC that are resistant to other antifungals; however, it is only available via intravenous administration and is associated with a significant risk of renal toxicity and infusion reactions, making it an unsuitable option in settings where there is underlying, or high risk of, renal impairment. Due to significant monitoring issues, Amphotericin B is also less desirable for outpatient parenteral administration. SCY-247 has demonstrated potent in vitro activity against all clinically relevant Candida species, including multi-drug resistant and has demonstrated efficacy in preclinical IC models against azole-resistant and echinocandin-resistant Candida strains including C. auris, C. glabrata (some of the most difficult to treat Candida infections).

•
Prevention of IFI in patients at high risk. Since invasive fungal infections (i.e., IC, invasive aspergillosis, mucormycosis, pneumocystis pneumonia, etc.) have poor outcomes in patients that are immunocompromised, antifungal prophylaxis aiming to prevent such infections during the periods of highest risk has become a standard practice in most institutions. The patients that typically receive these preventive antifungal approaches include those with leukemia or other types of cancer that are receiving chemotherapy and or bone marrow transplant as well as those with solid organ transplants such as lung and liver. Duration of antifungal prophylaxis varies depending on the underlying condition, but for a patient with leukemia receiving chemotherapy, the duration is typically 90 days, which explains the preference for oral options. Most guidelines recommend the use oral azoles for antifungal prophylaxis. However, novel medications introduced to more effectively treat the underlying malignancies can have their clearance from the body significantly impacted by the concurrent use of azole antifungals, that are well known to inhibit CYP enzymes (key metabolic path for clearance of many medications), increasing the potential for significant toxicities. In this vulnerable population, an antifungal prophylaxis approach that does not pose a significant risk of drug-drug interactions with the underlying disease treatments represents an unmet need. SCY-247 has demonstrated in vitro and/or in vivo activity against Candida, Aspergillus, Mucorales and Pneumocystis spp., providing the needed antifungal coverage for this indication. Additionally, the risk of drug-drug interactions via CYP inhibition appears to be very low, based on available data to date, making it a strong candidate to optimize antifungal prophylaxis for these patients.

In the future, we may also consider other indications for SCY-247 for which longer oral antifungal regimens are typically needed and would benefit from the broad-spectrum activity, favorable safety profile and low potential for drug-drug interactions, including for the treatment of chronic fungal infections.

For the treatment of invasive fungal infections, we expect that prescribing physicians will be located at major medical centers, where physicians specializing in critical care, infectious disease specialists, and physicians treating immune compromised or immuno-suppressed patients, such as oncologists and those performing solid organ transplants and stem cell transplants, are likely to be found.

Market Opportunity for SCY-247

Invasive Candidiasis

Treatment options for IC are limited to three main drug classes: echinocandins, azoles, and amphotericin B. The echinocandins are considered the first line recommended therapy in most IC settings. Because the echinocandins can be administered only intravenously, orally administered azoles are often used as step-down agents after initial intravenous

6

echinocandin therapy. However, antifungal treatment duration for IC typically extends for several weeks and patients for whom the azoles are not a suitable therapy due to resistance, intolerance, or risk of drug-to-drug interaction are restricted to use intravenous therapy for several weeks. Amphotericin B is also only available via intravenous administration and is associated with a significant risk of renal toxicity and infusion reactions, making it an unsuitable option in settings where there is underlying, or high risk of, renal impairment. Due to significant monitoring issues, Amphotericin B is also less desirable for outpatient parenteral administration. The echinocandins are typically well tolerated but clinical resistance is rising in many centers, due to development of mutations in the fks genes leading to echinocandin resistance and shift species with natural resistance as well as the rise of novel drug resistant species, such as Candida auris. When resistance develops, the available treatment options may be less efficacious or more toxic. The phenomenon of multi-drug resistance is also reported among isolates of different species of Candida, making the management of patients suffering from these infections extraordinarily challenging, considering the very limited treatment options available. Specifically, 90% of Candida auris isolates have been reported to be resistant to at least one antifungal agent and 30% of isolates resistant to at least two antifungals.

There is a clear need for new antifungal treatment options for patients with IC and we believe SCY-247 has the potential to address many of these unmet needs.

Competition for SCY-247 and Fungerps

Competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies. The leading antifungal drugs representing each main class are as follows:

Azoles. Noxafil® (posaconazole) marketed by Merck and Cresemba® (isavuconazole), approved in the U.S. and other global markets and marketed by Astellas in the U.S.; Vivjoa® (oteseconzaole) marketed by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Diflucan® (fluconazole), Pfizer, off-patent with multiple generics, Terazol (terconazole), Jannsen, off-patent with multiple generics, Gynazole (butoconazole), Perrigo, off patent with multiple generics;

Echinocandins. Rezzayo® (rezafungin) marketed by Melinta Therapeutics, Cancidas® (caspofungin), a product that became generic in March 2017, and Mycamine® (micafungin), a generic product. Pfizer markets the echinocandin Eraxis® (anidulafungin); and

Polyenes. AmBisome® (liposomal amphotericin B), a product sold by Gilead in Europe, by Astellas in the U.S. and by Dainippon-Sumitomo in Japan.

Various other producers market and sell generic oral voriconazole, fluconazole and itraconazole.

Other antifungals in development include Fosmanogepix being developed by Basilea Pharmaceuticals Inc., the polyene amphotericin B oral formulation MAT2203 being developed by Matinas BioPharma Holdings Inc., and Olorofim (F901318) being developed by F2G Limited.

We believe that the fungerps have the ability to perform well in the future fungal infection market given the limited competitive marketplace, the unmet medical need, and the often high mortality rate of many of these infections. The key competitive factors affecting the success of the fungerps, if approved, are likely to be its efficacy, safety, convenience, use in outpatient settings, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. If approved, we believe that the fungerp's unique features, including being from a novel antifungal class, broad-spectrum of activity including resistant strains, intravenous and oral formulations, fungicidal activity versus Candida, high tissue penetration, and favorable safety profile, will differentiate it from competing products and allow premium pricing to generics and other competing products.

The commercial opportunity for the fungerps could be reduced or eliminated if competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than products that we may develop. Competitors also may obtain FDA, or other regulatory, approval for their products more rapidly than we obtain approvals. In addition, the commercial success of SCY-247 may be affected because in many cases insurers or other third-party payors seek to encourage the use of generic products. In the azole class, fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and oral voriconazole are generic. Caspofungin, the largest selling echinocandin, is available on a generic basis. If approved, we believe the fungerps will be capable of delivering value supportive of premium pricing over competitive generic products.

Manufacturing and Supply of SCY-247

SCY-247 is a semi-synthetic compound that involves fermentation and synthetic chemical steps in its manufacturing process. The synthetic process does not require any specialized equipment and uses readily sourced intermediates. We do not own or operate and do not intend to own or operate facilities for manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing of drug substance or drug product. We have relied on third-party contract manufacturers for synthesis of our clinical compounds and manufacture of drug product.

7

A drug manufacturing program subject to extensive governmental regulations requires robust quality assurance systems and experienced personnel with the relevant technical and regulatory expertise as well as strong project management skills. We believe we have a team that is capable of managing these activities. We believe the primary third-party vendors with which we have agreements in place to support manufacturing and supply for clinical development have the required capabilities with respect to facilities, equipment and technical expertise, quality systems that meet global regulatory and compliance requirements, satisfactory regulatory inspection history from relevant health authorities and proven track records in supplying drug substance and drug product.

MARIO Study Update

As previously disclosed, we and GSK entered into an exclusive license agreement dated March 30, 2023, which was subsequently amended by the binding memorandums of understanding dated December 26, 2023 and October 14, 2025 (collectively, the GSK License Agreement). The MARIO study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, global Phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral ibrexafungerp as a step-down therapy for patients with IC including candidemia following IV echinocandin therapy in the hospital compared to currently available therapies (the MARIO study).

Pursuant to the GSK License Agreement, we were responsible for conducting the MARIO study which resumed in April 2025 after the FDA notified us that the clinical hold of ibrexafungerp had been lifted, triggering us to bill a $10.0 million development milestone to GSK in the three months ended June 30, 2025. Subsequently, GSK notified us of their intention to immediately terminate the MARIO study based on GSK's purported rights under the GSK License Agreement. We did not believe that GSK had the right to unilaterally terminate the MARIO study under the GSK License Agreement.

In October 2025, we entered into a binding memorandum of understanding (the Binding 2025 MOU) with GSK and we agreed to promptly wind-down and terminate the MARIO study and we received one-time, non-refundable payments totaling $24.8 million from GSK. We will not receive any additional development milestone payments from GSK specifically associated with the MARIO study. Except as described above with respect to the MARIO study, the Binding 2025 MOU does not alter the potential milestones and royalties payable to us under the GSK License Agreement, including with regard to sales of BREXAFEMME for VVC and rVVC.

GSK has reiterated its commitment to continued collaboration with us regarding other aspects of the GSK License Agreement, including with respect to the commercialization of BREXAFEMME for VVC and rVVC indications. We completed the transfer of the BREXAFEMME NDA (as defined in the Binding 2025 MOU) to GSK in November 2025. GSK anticipates being able to initiate regulatory interactions with the FDA in 2026 to discuss the relaunch of BREXAFEMME for VVC and rVVC in the U.S. market.

We remain committed to developing novel antifungal solutions to the rising threat of deadly fungal infections including IC for which there are limited treatment options and significant concerns for emergence of resistances, as highlighted by the World Health Organization in their call to industry and other parties for research, development and public health action in this area of unmet need.

Key Development Milestones

We are seeking to achieve the following key near term milestones:

•
to complete the ongoing Phase 1 study with the intravenous formulation of SCY-247 in 2026; and

•
to initiate a Phase 2 study of SCY-247 in IC.

Our Strategy

Key elements of our strategy include:

•
to leverage our strong scientific team to pursue the development of SCY-247 and other internal proprietary compounds;

•
to explore potential non-dilutive funding opportunities to further support SCY-247; and

•
to assess external opportunities for in-licensing to expand our development pipeline and add products for commercialization.

Licensing Agreements

We routinely review for potential in-licensing opportunities and are party to a number of licensing and collaboration agreements with partners in human health, including: (1) GSK, a pharmaceutical company, which we exclusively (even as to us and our affiliates) provide a, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license for the development, manufacture, and commercialization of ibrexafungerp, including the approved product BREXAFEMME, for all indications, in the GSK Territory; (2) Merck, a pharmaceutical company, under which we exclusively licensed the rights to ibrexafungerp in the field of human health, and agreed to pay Merck milestones upon the occurrence of specified events as well as tiered royalties based on worldwide sales of

8

ibrexafungerp when and if it is approved (in 2014, Merck assigned to us the patents related to ibrexafungerp that it had exclusively licensed to us and, as contemplated by the agreement, we will continue to pay milestones and royalties); (3) Hansoh, a pharmaceutical company, which we have exclusively provided a license to research, develop and commercialize ibrexafungerp in the Greater China region, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan; Hansoh recently received Chinese approval for ibrexafungerp in VVC and we will receive a milestone upon commercialization as well as royalties of approximately 10%; (4) R-Pharm, CJSC, or "R-Pharm," a leading supplier of hospital drugs in Russia, granting R-Pharm exclusive rights in the field of human health to develop and commercialize ibrexafungerp in Russia and several non-core markets, under which we are entitled to receive potential milestones and royalties and reimbursement for certain development costs incurred by us (this agreement is not material to our consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations, or statements of cash flows); (5) Waterstone, an international pharmaceutical business, granting Waterstone exclusive worldwide rights to development and commercialization of SCY-635 for the treatment of viral diseases in humans, under which we are entitled to receive potential milestones and royalties; and (6) Cypralis Limited, or "Cypralis," a life sciences company, transferring to Cypralis certain cyclophilin inhibitor assets of ours, under which we are eligible to receive milestone payments upon the successful progression of certain Cypralis clinical candidates into later stage clinical studies and royalties payable upon product commercialization.

Government Regulation

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, including any manufacturing changes, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Drug Approval Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and implements regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. 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, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve pending NDAs, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters, product recall requests, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties.

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•
completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations;

•
submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application (IND) which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

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

•
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP) to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for each indication, subject to on-going IRB review;

•
submission to the FDA of an NDA;

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

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with current Good manufacturing practice (cGMP) regulations and guidance, 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.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for FDA to reconsider the application.

Preclinical Studies

9

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, 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. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places 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.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an 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. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which in some cases may overlap or be combined:

Phase 1: The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness.

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

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

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials sometimes cannot 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. 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 patients.

In some cases, the FDA may condition approval of an NDA for a product candidate on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the drug’s safety and effectiveness after NDA approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 studies.

In some circumstances, the FDA may also order a sponsor to conduct post-approval clinical trials if new safety information arises raising questions about the drug’s risk-benefit profile. Those clinical trials are typically referred to as Post-Marketing Requirements (PMRs).

GAIN Act

The FDA has various expedited development programs, including break-through therapy, fast track designation and priority review, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that meet certain qualifications. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

The Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act (GAIN Act) is intended to encourage development of new antibacterial and antifungal drugs for the treatment of serious or life-threatening infections by providing certain benefits to sponsors, including extended exclusivity periods, fast track and priority review. To be eligible for these benefits a product in development must seek and be awarded designation as a QIDP.

10

To qualify as a QIDP according to the criteria established in the GAIN Act, a product must be an antibacterial or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including, those:

•
caused by an antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens; or

•
qualifying pathogens listed by the FDA in accordance with the GAIN Act.

Fast Track Designation

The FDA is required to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of drugs that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a Fast Track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for Fast Track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor's request.

If a drug candidate is granted Fast Track designation, the sponsor may engage in more frequent interactions with the FDA, and the FDA may review sections of the NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides, and the FDA approves, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, the FDA's time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. Additionally, Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

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, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes or other labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and 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 application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

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 boxed warning, require that post‑approval studies, including Phase 4 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.

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 are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third‑party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label, although physicians, in the practice of medicine, may prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications. However, pharmaceutical companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting their promotion of off‑label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off‑label uses may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative liability.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which 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.

Pediatric Exclusivity

11

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of regulatory protection to the term of any existing exclusivity, including the non-patent exclusivity periods described above, and to the regulatory term of any patent that has been submitted to FDA for the approved drug product. This six-month exclusivity may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study or studies in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study or studies.

Qualified Infectious Disease Product (QIDP) Exclusivity

If the NDA for a QIDP is approved by the FDA, the FDA will extend by an additional five years any non-patent marketing exclusivity period awarded, such as a five-year exclusivity period awarded for a new chemical entity. This extension is in addition to any pediatric exclusivity extension awarded. Eligibility for the extension will be denied if the product is approved for uses that would not meet the definition of a QIDP.

Data Privacy and Security

In the ordinary course of our business, we may process confidential, proprietary, and sensitive information, including personal data. Accordingly, we are, or may become, subject to numerous data privacy and security obligations, including federal, state, local, and foreign laws, regulations, guidance, and industry standards related to data privacy and security. Such obligations may include, without limitation, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (EU GDPR), the EU GDPR as it forms part of United Kingdom (UK) law by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (UK GDPR), and the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). Several states within the United States have enacted or proposed data privacy and security laws. For example, Virginia passed the Consumer Data Protection Act, and Colorado passed the Colorado Privacy Act. Additionally, we are, or may become, subject to various U.S. federal and state consumer protection laws which require us to publish statements that accurately and fairly describe how we handle personal data and choices individuals may have about the way we handle their personal data.

The CCPA and EU GDPR are examples of the increasingly stringent and evolving regulatory frameworks related to personal data processing that may increase our compliance obligations and exposure for any noncompliance. For example, the CCPA imposes obligations on covered businesses to provide specific disclosures related to a business’s collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and to respond to certain requests from California residents related to their personal data (for example, requests to know of the business’s personal data processing activities, to delete the individual’s personal data, and to opt out of certain personal data disclosures). Also, the CCPA provides for civil penalties and a private right of action for data breaches which may include an award of statutory damages. In addition, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA), effective January 1, 2023, expanded the CCPA by, among other things, giving California residents the ability to limit use of certain sensitive personal data, establishing restrictions on personal data retention, expanding the types of data breaches that are subject to the CCPA’s private right of action, and establishing a new California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the new law.

Foreign data privacy and security laws (including but not limited to the EU GDPR and UK GDPR) impose significant and complex compliance obligations on entities that are subject to those laws. As one example, the EU GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. These obligations may include limiting personal data processing to only what is necessary for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes; requiring a legal basis for personal data processing; requiring the appointment of a data protection officer in certain circumstances; increasing transparency obligations to data subjects; requiring data protection impact assessments in certain circumstances; limiting the collection and retention of personal data; increasing rights for data subjects; formalizing a heightened and codified standard of data subject consents; requiring the implementation and maintenance of technical and organizational safeguards for personal data; mandating notice of certain personal data breaches to the relevant supervisory authority(ies) and affected individuals; and mandating the appointment of representatives in the UK and/or the EU in certain circumstances.

See the section titled “Risk Factors” for additional information about the laws and regulations to which we may become subject and about the risks to our business associated with such laws and regulations.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States our activities are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, such as the Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, in the United States, sales, marketing and scientific and educational programs also must comply with state and federal fraud and abuse laws, false

12

claims laws, transparency laws, government price reporting, and health information privacy and security laws. These laws include the following:

•
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Moreover, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the Affordable Care Act, provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act;

•
the federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act that can be enforced by private citizens through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions and civil monetary penalties laws, prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government;

•
the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, prohibits, among other things, executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters;

•
the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to CMS information regarding payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals as well as information regarding ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members;

•
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and their implementing regulations, also imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, on “covered entities,” including certain healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and their respective “business associates,” that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity as well as their covered subcontractors, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information, as well as analogous state and foreign laws that govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts; and

•
analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non- governmental third-party payors, including private insurers.

For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the federal and state anti-fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, the privacy provisions of HIPAA and payment transparency laws.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative sanctions, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, imprisonment, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and contractual damages.

Foreign Regulation

To market any product outside of the United States, 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. 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.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

13

The ability to commercialize BREXAFEMME and any of our product candidates successfully will depend in part on the extent to which the United States and foreign governmental authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors establish appropriate coverage and reimbursement levels for our product candidates and related treatments. In many of the markets where we would commercialize a product following regulatory approval, the prices of pharmaceutical products are subject to direct price controls (by law) and to drug reimbursement programs with varying price control mechanisms. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. One third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product candidate does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product candidate. As a result, the coverage determination process is often time-consuming and costly.

Increasingly, third party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical product candidates. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of its products. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of its products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Additionally, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug in their formularies when a competing generic product is available. Under Medicare, hospitals are reimbursed under an inpatient prospective payment system. This pricing methodology provides a single payment amount to hospitals based on a given diagnosis-related group. As a result, with respect to Medicare reimbursement for services in the hospital inpatient setting, hospitals could have a financial incentive to use the least expensive drugs for the treatment of invasive fungal infections, particularly the IV formulations of these drugs, as they are typically administered in the hospital. Further, coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Public and private health care payors control costs and influence drug pricing through a variety of mechanisms, including through negotiating discounts with the manufacturers and through the use of tiered formularies and other mechanisms that provide preferential access to certain drugs over others within a therapeutic class. Payors also set other criteria to govern the uses of a drug that will be deemed medically appropriate and therefore reimbursed or otherwise covered. In particular, many public and private health care payors limit reimbursement and coverage to the uses of a drug that are either approved by the FDA or that are supported by other appropriate evidence (for example, published medical literature) and appear in a recognized drug compendium. Drug compendia are publications that summarize the available medical evidence for particular drug products and identify which uses of a drug are supported or not supported by the available evidence, whether or not such uses have been approved by the FDA.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed reforms of the healthcare system to contain costs, improve quality, and expand access to care. For example, in the United States the Affordable Care Act substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and continues to significantly impact the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. There have been amendments to and executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the "donut hole" under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is also unclear how such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the second Trump administration will impact the Affordable Care Act and our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, effective April 1, 2013, which, due to subsequent legislative amendments, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will stay in effect until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

There also has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries, Presidential executive orders and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug

14

products. For example, the IRA, among other things (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least 7 years covered under Medicare, or the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions began to take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon prices of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is currently subject to legal challenges. On January 17, 2025, HHS selected fifteen additional products covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Further, on December 7, 2023, an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act was announced. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, on January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this program will be implemented, including which drugs will be chosen, and whether it will be subject to legal challenges in the United States or Canada. Other states have also submitted SIP proposals that are pending review by the FDA. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs.

The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patents intended to cover our product candidates and compositions, and their methods of use and other inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

As of March 1, 2026, we are the owner of more than 10 issued U.S. patents and more than 135 issued non-U.S. patents with claims to novel compounds, compositions containing them, processes for their preparation, and their uses as pharmaceutical agents, with terms expiring between 2027 and 2038. Of these patents, six U.S. patents relate to ibrexafungerp, and one U.S. patent relates to SCY-247. We are actively pursuing several U.S. patent applications and many non-U.S. patent applications in multiple jurisdictions worldwide.

Ibrexafungerp is protected in the United States by an issued composition of matter patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,188,085); three issued patents related to ibrexafungerp salts and polymorphs, including the citrate salt used in BREXAFEMME; and two patents covering uses of ibrexafungerp in treatment or prevention of fungal infections. The ‘085 patent is set to expire in 2035 following a grant of patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). The three patents covering the citrate salt of ibrexafungerp expire in 2035. The two patents covering uses of ibrexafungerp expire in 2038. The ibrexafungerp composition of matter is covered by a patent in more than 60 jurisdictions worldwide, with several more patent applications pending. Additional patent applications related to ibrexafungerp’s formulations and use as an antifungal agent have been filed and are currently pending. If granted, the new patent families could extend the patent protection for certain ibrexafungerp formulations or uses up to 2040. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our proprietary technology and processes, please see the section on “Risk Factors-Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property.”

SCY-247 is protected in the United States by an issued composition of matter patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,863,465). The ‘465 patent is currently set to expire in 2029. The SCY-247 composition of matter is covered by a patent in several other jurisdictions worldwide, including Europe, Japan, and China.

Employees

As of March 1, 2026, we had 18 employees, all of whom were employed on a full-time basis. Our employees are engaged in administration, accounting and finance, research, clinical development, manufacturing, and business development functions. We believe our relations with our employees are good.

15

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in the State of Delaware on November 4, 1999. Our corporate headquarters are located at 1 Evertrust Plaza, 13th Floor, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302.

Our corporate website address is www.scynexis.com. Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available free of charge on our website. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this Annual Report, and the inclusion of our website address in this Annual Report is an inactive textual reference only.

16