NASDAQ: SLN

SLN548 is our Phase 1 ready siRNA product candidate that works by "silencing" the complement factor B, or CFB, gene, potentially playing a therapeutic role in conditions associated with over activation of this pathway, including complement-mediated renal diseases, among others. SLN548 has demonstrated positive preclinical results and we are seeking a third-party partner to initiate clinical development.

Cardiometabolic Diseases

Zerlasiran (SLN360) is our Phase 3 ready siRNA product candidate for cardiovascular disease that works by "silencing" the LPA gene, lowering production of apolipoprotein(a), a key component of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), that has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. High Lp(a), defined as 125nmol/L or higher, is a genetically determined cardiovascular risk factor affecting at least 20% of the world’s population and is associated with a high risk of heart attack, stroke and aortic stenosis. Unlike low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, Lp(a) levels are predominantly genetically determined, typically by age five, and unaffected by diet or lifestyle. There are currently no approved medicines that selectively lower Lp(a). Guidelines from the European Atherosclerosis Society, or EAS, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, or CCS, and the National Lipid Association, or NLA, suggest at least one test in an adult lifetime. The American College of Cardiology, or ACC, and American Heart Association, or AHA, recommend testing for those with a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, or ASCVD, or personal history of ASCVD. In Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, zerlasiran showed the potential to substantially lower Lp(a)

4

levels in ASCVD patients with persisting effects following infrequent dosing and was well tolerated with no major safety concerns. We have received positive regulatory feedback from the FDA and European Medicines Agency, or EMA, on the Phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes trial design for zerlasiran in patients with high Lp(a). In 2025, we completed core Phase 3 readiness activities, including manufacturing and supply scale up. Zerlasiran is Phase 3 ready and we are seeking a third-party partner for potential Phase 3 development as well as potential future commercialization.

SLN312 is our siRNA product candidate under our collaboration with AstraZeneca that works by "silencing" ANGPTL3, an important modulator of lipid metabolism. Inhibition of ANGPTL3 has emerged as a promising new therapeutic approach to reduce triglycerides (TG) and LDL-C levels, the latter independent of the LDL-C receptor function. Since ANGPTL3 suppresses lipoprotein lipase, or LPL, and endothelial lipase, or EL, activity, its inhibition facilitates the clearance of very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, decreasing both LDL-C and TG levels. AstraZeneca shared interim results from its Phase 1 randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing SLN312 in 98 patients with dyslipidemia. Interim results showed SLN312 produced durable dose-dependent reductions in ANGPTL3, triglycerides and atherogenic lipoproteins after single and multiple doses. The strong duration of effect observed supports potential for infrequent dosing. SLN312 was well tolerated with no safety concerns identified. Phase 1 data presentations are planned for medical and research congresses in 2026. On March 4, 2026, AstraZeneca notified Silence that they will not pursue further development beyond Phase 1. We will re-gain full development, manufacturing and commercialization rights globally to this clinical asset following Phase 1 and are evaluating plans for further clinical development.

SLN365 is our potential first-in-class siRNA product candidate that works by "silencing" GPR146, a novel mechanism of action for the management of cholesterol levels in patients, independent of LDLR function. Hypercholesterolemia is a highly prevalent indication with an estimated 1 in 300 individuals worldwide living with the familial form HeFH (heterozygous) and around 1 in 300,000 individuals suffering from the form HoFH (homozygous) globally. SLN365 has demonstrated promising preclinical results in non-human primates and we anticipate additional preclinical data in the second quarter of 2026.

SLN098 is our siRNA product candidate that works by "silencing" INHBE, a novel target for obesity supported by human genetics, strong preclinical data and emerging third-party clinical data demonstrating early efficacy and safety. Despite recent advances in obesity treatment, limitations of current standards of care leave millions at risk of further complications. Around one billion patients worldwide are affected by obesity and associated co-morbidities. Current obesity treatments offer weight loss around 15-20% which plateaus after 12-24 months and are associated with up to 40% lean muscle mass loss. More than two thirds of weight loss is regained within the first year after discontinuation of treatment. There is also poor tolerability and compliance with up to 30% of patients discontinuing GLP/GIP agonists treatment. SLN098 has the opportunity to address unmet needs including increasing fat loss, preventing muscle mass loss and slowing weight regain. SLN098 has demonstrated deep and durable knockdown in nonhuman primates and we anticipate additional disease model data in the second quarter of 2026 to further validate the mechanism of action. We believe there is an opportunity to develop SLN098 either as a monotherapy or add-on to GLP/GIP agonists or as a weight maintenance treatment.

5

Our mRNAi GOLD Development Pipeline

Background on siRNA Molecules and RNA Interference

Messenger RNA, or mRNA, plays an essential role in the process used by cells to translate genetic information from DNA to create proteins. Transcription from DNA in the cell nucleus generates different types of RNA, including mRNA, which carries in the sequence of its nucleotides the genetic information which serves as molecular blueprints required for translation, or protein synthesis, outside of the nucleus where proteins are made. In some cases, cells produce mRNA erroneously, resulting in synthesis of too much of a particular protein or a mutated protein variant, which can lead to disease. Our siRNAs are designed to bind to undesirable mRNA, whereupon a natural process known as RNA interference, or RNAi, is triggered, resulting in catalytic degradation of the mRNA and reduced production and activity of the disease-associated protein.

RNAi is a naturally occurring biological pathway within cells for sequence-specific silencing and regulation of gene expression. RNAi was discovered by Andrew Fire and Craig Mello, for which they were awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. RNAi therapeutics represent a novel advance in drug development that has the potential to transform the care of patients with genetic and other diseases. Historically, the pharmaceutical industry had developed only small molecules or recombinant proteins to inhibit the activity of disease-associated proteins. While this approach is effective for many diseases, a number of proteins cannot be inhibited by either small molecules or recombinant proteins. Some proteins lack the binding pockets small molecules require for interaction. Other proteins are solely intracellular and are therefore inaccessible to recombinant protein-based therapeutics, which are limited to cell surface and extracellular proteins. The unique advantage of RNAi is that, instead of targeting proteins, RNAi silences the expression of genes themselves via the targeted destruction of the mRNAs made from the gene. Rather than seeking to inhibit a protein directly, the RNAi approach works upstream to prevent its creation in the first place.

Once inside a cell, siRNA molecules are recognized by the endogenous RNAi cellular machinery, which removes one of the strands, referred to as a passenger strand, of the siRNA construct, thereby allowing the other strand, referred to as a guide strand, to find its target mRNA and bind to it through Watson-Crick base pairing. This site-specific binding triggers the biological process of RNAi interference, by which natural cellular machinery degrades target mRNA bound by the guide strand and thereby prevents it from being translated into functional proteins.

Our medicines are designed to harness this natural pathway to develop a new generation of therapeutics by designing tailored siRNA sequences that are able to bind through Watson-Crick base pairing to mRNAs that code for

6

specific disease-associated genes, or genes that regulate them. Our siRNA molecules are administered by subcutaneous injection. Once administered, our siRNA molecules are taken up specifically by target liver cells or cleared from the body within hours. A single siRNA molecule, once in the liver and incorporated into the RNAi cellular machinery, can degrade large numbers of targeted mRNAs due to the catalytic nature of the cell’s RNAi machinery. Because the catalytic activity of the RNAi pathway eventually fades with gradual degradation of the guide strands, RNAi-mediated protein reduction is not permanent. In our preclinical and clinical studies, we have observed a durable, dose-dependent silencing effect with our product candidates following subcutaneous injection. The graphic below shows the steps involved in the pairing of our siRNA molecules with the bases contained in the mRNA sequence for a particular target gene.

We believe that siRNA molecules can, in theory, be engineered to bind specifically to and silence almost any gene in the human genome to which siRNA can be delivered. This potentially broad application of siRNA therapeutics could allow them to become a new major class of drugs. We are currently able to deliver siRNA molecules to liver cells using GalNAc for receptor-mediated targeting. GalNAc is an amino-modified monosaccharide that binds to asialoglycoprotein receptors, or ASGPRs, with high affinity and specificity. When GalNAc-conjugated siRNA molecules reach the surface of liver cells, they are internalized in those cells, with those not internalized being excreted. Once internalized, the siRNAs specifically bind to their target mRNAs, degrading them through the cell’s natural RNAi pathway. This GalNAc-siRNA drug modality is intended to enable precision medicine through the accuracy of Watson-Crick base pairing of the siRNA to its target gene mRNA, coupled with the specificity of GalNAc-mediated delivery to the target gene-containing liver cell.

Our mRNAi GOLD™ platform uses a novel structure of double-stranded RNA with chemical modifications designed to improve the stability and efficacy of our siRNA molecules as well as to enhance delivery to targeted liver cells. We incorporate proprietary chemical modifications to enhance drug properties of our siRNA molecules, such as potency, stability and tissue distribution. We believe this approach results in a powerful modular technology that will be well-suited to tackle life-changing diseases. Particular siRNA molecules are designed to reduce the levels of a disease-associated protein directly, such as in the case of zerlasiran. In preclinical and clinical studies, zerlasiran was shown to directly reduce Lp(a) expression. Alternatively, in cases in which a disease-associated protein is normally subject to inhibition by a regulatory protein, siRNA molecules are designed to increase the levels of the

7

disease-associated protein by silencing the inhibitory protein, thereby relieving inhibition and indirectly increasing levels of the protein normally subject to inhibition. In preclinical and clinical studies, divesiran was shown to indirectly up-regulate hepcidin levels by reducing the expression of a specific gene, TMPRSS6, which normally inhibits the production of hepcidin. We will use this approach to address ‘iron loading’ anemia conditions in which hepcidin expression is typically low. Using these techniques, we believe we can design siRNA molecules to decrease high protein levels, and in some cases, to increase low protein levels, depending on the particular disease genes being targeted.

Our mRNAi GOLD™ Platform

Our mRNAi GOLD™ platform comprises elements of our GalNAc-siRNA toolbox, our liver cell targeting technology and our target selection and screening process.

GalNAc-siRNA Toolbox. Our mRNAi GOLD™ platform is a toolbox comprising several different elements that can be incorporated into our double-stranded siRNA structure, known as blunt-ended 19-mers, either singly or in different combinations depending on individual siRNA sequences. The toolbox elements include:

•
sugar modifications of one or more select individual nucleotides;

•
stabilizing modifications of one or more internucleoside linkages in the sense and antisense strands;

•
stabilizing modifications at one or more of the ends of the siRNA molecules; and

•
a versatile linker chemistry for GalNAc ligand conjugation in various numbers and configurations.

When applying these elements of our toolbox, we also aim to reduce the overall content of the sugar modifications and the number of undefined stereogenic centers in the siRNA molecule.

Liver Cell Targeting Technology. Blood flow and fenestra, or small openings in the endothelium, result in a large amount of the injected dose of a conjugated siRNA passing through the liver and reaching the main cell type of the liver known as a hepatocyte. Hepatocytes are cuboidal epithelial cells that line the liver sinusoids. Individual hepatocytes have approximately 0.5 to 1.0 million cell surface ASGPRs. GalNAc binds to ASGPRs with high affinity so that when GalNAc-conjugated siRNA reaches the hepatocytes, they are internalized into the cells where siRNA can bind and, as a result, can degrade the target mRNA, which in turn reduces production of the encoded protein and that protein’s activity, thereby silencing the respective gene. Only a small fraction of the initial dose reaches the hepatocyte and the right compartment of the cell, but once the siRNA is there, it can stay active and intact for several months, allowing a small number of internalized siRNA molecules to exert a potent effect on the target mRNA. We apply the toolbox elements in the lead optimization phase to identify candidates that we believe will be potent with a long duration of action and have a favorable safety profile.

Target Selection and Screening Process. We are able to source potential product candidates through a proprietary target selection process. The selection of new targets involves a careful analysis of human genetics evidence, the biology underlying an indication, disease epidemiology and addressable population, the current standard of care and resulting medical need, the commercial landscape and the envisaged clinical path.

Our screening process relies on a proprietary in silico algorithm that seeks to predict the most efficacious and specific siRNAs for any given target. This bioinformatics function is designed to continuously improve in silico predictions for finding potentially potent and safe siRNA sequences. The highest scoring drug candidates subsequently undergo a multi-step evaluation process involving several rounds of in vitro screening in cell lines and primary hepatocytes to identify the most potent molecules. Top candidates identified in vitro are then tested for safety and potential efficacy in animal models. At this point in the process, additional modification patterns and new chemistries are introduced for improvement of activity and duration of action while maintaining the desired safety profile. To be selected as a drug candidate for clinical trials, it further needs to be shown that a molecule is well tolerated, elicits no serious adverse effects, and achieves strong and long-lasting knockdown of the targeted gene in a study with non-human primates.

8

We have built a promising pipeline of siRNA product candidates based on our mRNAi GOLD™ platform for rare and common diseases with high unmet need.

Our siRNA Product Candidates

Divesiran (SLN124)

Overview

Divesiran is our potential first-in-class siRNA product candidate in Phase 2 development for PV. PV is a rare myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by the overproduction of RBCs and affects approximately 3.5 million individuals worldwide. Elevated HCT - an index of RBC mass - is a hallmark of the disease. Elevated HCT levels above 45% is associated with a four-times higher rate of death from cardiovascular or thrombotic events. PV is associated with a range of burdensome symptoms including fatigue, cognitive disturbance and pruritis and additionally, longer term can transform to myelofibrosis and Acute Myeloid Leukemia, or AML. The aim of treatment is to maintain HCT less than 45%, a level that is associated with a reduced incidence of thrombosis and cardiovascular-associated death. The current standard of care includes repeated phlebotomies to reduce HCT and/or cytoreductive agents to reduce red blood cell production. There are currently no approved therapies that specifically target RBCs and HCT.

Divesiran is administered subcutaneously and works by specifically binding to and inducing RNAi-mediated degradation of mRNAs made from the TMPRSS6 gene. TMPRSS6 is a negative regulator of hepcidin, which is the main hormone controlling iron homeostasis in the body. While our initial focus is on PV, divesiran has shown the potential in preclinical studies to address multiple hematological conditions through this central mechanism. By silencing TMPRSS6 in PV patients, divesiran aims to increase hepcidin production and release by liver hepatocytes, reducing iron availability to the bone marrow. With less iron available, the overproduction of red blood cells seen in PV is reduced. This helps keep HCT levels in a safer range and can reduce or eliminate the need for phlebotomies. Additionally, siRNA therapies have a highly potent and durable effect - enabling less frequent and more convenient dosing.

In the SANRECO Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating divesiran treatment in 21 PV patients, divesiran produced durable HCT control and substantially reduced phlebotomy use following infrequent dosing (Q6W). Based on the strong durability observed in the Phase 1 trial, the ongoing SANRECO Phase 2 trial is designed to evaluate both a Q6W and Q12W dosing interval. The SANRECO Phase 2 trial is fully enrolled and topline results are anticipated in the third quarter of 2026. The FDA has granted divesiran Fast Track and orphan drug designations for PV. Divesiran has also been granted orphan drug designation by the European Commission for PV in Europe.

Disadvantages of existing treatment options

The primary treatment goal in PV is to reduce the risk of thrombotic events by reducing hematocrit (the percent volume of red blood cells in the blood) to within target levels. The mainstay of treatment is therapeutic phlebotomy to reduce the number of blood cells by regularly removing blood from the patient. Phlebotomy results in erratic, suboptimal control of hematocrit, and regular phlebotomies can be burdensome to the patient. Patients over 60, or those with prior thrombotic events or additional cardiovascular risk factors are also treated with chemotherapy drugs (cytoreductive agents) to suppress blood cell production. The majority of these patients are treated with hydroxyurea, which is poorly tolerated and carries the risk of potential long term side effects. Patients who are resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea may be treated with the JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi), which carries the risk of thrombocytopenia (low platelet count). Finally, some patients are treated with synthetic hepcidin mimetic dosed weekly by subcutaneous injection in clinical trials. In contrast to synthetic hepcidin mimetics, divesiran elevates endogenous hepcidin produced and secreted by the liver, avoiding high local concentrations of hepcidin at the injection site. Based on results from the Phase 1 portion of the SANRECO clinical trial, divesiran has shown the potential to maintain durable HCT control and substantially reduce phlebotomy requirements with infrequent dosing in a broad range of PV patients. Importantly, divesiran has also shown to be well tolerated to-date with no dose-limiting toxicities.

GEMINI Trial

9

The GEMINI trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, single-ascending dose trial to investigate the safety, tolerability, PK and PD response of divesiran (1.0, 3.0 and 4.5 mg/kg doses) administered subcutaneously in 24 healthy volunteers. Key outcomes included:

•
All 3 dose levels were well tolerated with no serious or severe treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, leading to withdrawal.

•
Average hepcidin, a key endogenous regulator of iron balance and distribution, increased up to ~4-fold after a single dose with effect sustained for at least 2 months.

•
Serum iron reduced by ~50% after a single dose with effect sustained for at least two months.

•
Divesiran was rapidly distributed (median tmax was 4.0 or 5.0 hours) and largely eliminated from plasma within 24 hours post-dose in all dosing groups. Divesiran plasma concentrations increased in a greater than dose-linear fashion between dosing groups.

•
All divesiran doses induced marked reductions in transferrin saturation, or TSAT; absolute levels of TSAT achieved (10–16%) are below the level (< 20%) where iron availability to tissue is restricted and at or below that (< 16%) required to support normal erythropoiesis in health.

SANRECO Phase 1/2 Program

Our SANRECO clinical trial is a Phase 1/2 clinical trial with an open-label dose escalation phase followed by a randomized placebo controlled and double-blind phase of divesiran in PV patients.

The Phase 1 portion of the SANRECO clinical trial completed in February 2025 and was a 34-week, open-label trial that evaluated divesiran (3 mg/kg, 6 mg/kg and 9 mg/kg) administered subcutaneously every six weeks for four doses, with a 16-week follow-up period following the date of the last administered dose in 21 PV patients. Key inclusion criteria for the trial included a PV diagnosis and a history of requiring at least three phlebotomies in the last six months or five phlebotomies in the last year prior to screening. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of cytoreductive agents. Given the exploratory nature of this Phase 1 clinical trial, both well-controlled patients (defined as those with baseline HCT levels at 45% or less) and uncontrolled patients (defined as those with baseline HCT levels greater than 45%) were enrolled.

Results from the SANRECO Phase 1 trial showed divesiran's potential to maintain durable HCT control to target levels with infrequent dosing (Q6W) without the need for phlebotomies in the target population. A summary of the results can be found below.

•
Results included 21 phlebotomy-dependent PV patients with a combined history of 79 phlebotomies prior to dosing. Therapeutic phlebotomies were essentially eliminated in the target population and mean HCT levels were lowered and maintained to 45% for all cohorts regardless of baseline levels.

•
Divesiran increased hepcidin and ferritin, resulting in elevation of iron body content and improved iron deficiency.

•
Divesiran demonstrated similar results in all patient groups, independent of baseline risk or prior and concurrent therapy.

•
White blood cells were not altered over the time-course of the trial.

•
Platelets increased, reaching a plateau with no reported dose dependent effect.

•
Divesiran was well tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities.

The ongoing SANRECO Phase 2 trial is a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating divesiran (6 mg dose level) administered subcutaneously at Q6W and Q12W dosing intervals in 48 PV patients. The trial includes a 36-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind period followed by a three-year double-blind and open-label extension period. The primary endpoint of the trial is the proportion of patients who achieve a response receiving divesiran compared to placebo between 18 and 36 weeks. A responder is defined as a patient with HCT remaining less than 45% in the absence of phlebotomies during this time period. Secondary endpoints include safety

10

and tolerability, pharmacokinetics and quality of life outcomes. The trial is fully enrolled and initial topline results are anticipated in the third quarter of 2026.

SLN548

Overview

SLN548 is our Phase 1 ready siRNA product candidate that works by "silencing" the CFB gene, potentially playing a therapeutic role in conditions associated with over activation of this pathway, including complement-mediated renal diseases, among others. SLN548 has demonstrated promising preclinical results and we are seeking a third-party partner to initiate clinical development.

Zerlasiran (SLN360)

Overview

Zerlasiran is our Phase 3 ready siRNA product candidate for the treatment of cardiovascular disease associated with elevated Lp(a), a lipoprotein in the blood. Lp(a) is an independent risk factor increasing the chances of developing premature cardiovascular diseases, including coronary heart disease and unstable angina, as well as myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.

Elevated levels of Lp(a) ≥ 125 nmol/L or approximately 50mg/dL are considered to affect at least 20% of the world’s population. The incidence of elevated Lp(a) is thought to be higher in people with established cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valvular stenosis. Additionally, elevated Lp(a) concentrations are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, particularly in stroke patients 55 years of age and younger. There is a genetic link between plasma Lp(a) level and cardiovascular risk. Mutations that genetically cause elevated Lp(a) levels have been linked with increases in myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, carotid stenosis, peripheral arterial disease (including femoral artery stenosis), abdominal aortic aneurysm, obstructed coronary vessels (i.e. coronary atherosclerotic burden), earlier onset of coronary artery disease, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, increased risk of heart failure and reduced longevity. Importantly, these causal relationships are independent of concentrations of other lipids and lipoproteins, including low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and conventional cardiovascular disease risk factors. Conversely, a genetically determined decrease in Lp(a) has been associated with a 29% lower risk of coronary artery disease, 31% lower risk of peripheral vascular disease, 17% lower risk of heart failure, 13% lower risk of stroke and a 37% lower risk of aortic stenosis.

Zerlasiran is administered subcutaneously and has the potential to reduce these diseases by specifically binding to and inducing RNAi-mediated degradation of the mRNAs made from LPA, the gene that encodes apolipoprotein(a), a protein specifically found in Lp(a). Zerlasiran’s mode of action creates an opportunity to develop this product candidate for several indications for which Lp(a) has been shown to be a causal, independent risk factor. In Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, zerlasiran showed the potential to substantially reduce Lp(a) levels in ASCVD patients with maximum reductions exceeding 90% during the treatment period. Lp(a) reductions persisted 60 weeks following the first dose, indicating the potential for infrequent dosing. We have received positive regulatory feedback from the FDA and EMA on the Phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes study design for zerlasiran and have completed core Phase 3 readiness activities. Zerlasiran is Phase 3 ready and we are seeking a third-party partner for potential Phase 3 development.

Disadvantages of existing treatment options

Lp(a) is not susceptible to lifestyle changes and there are no currently available pharmacological treatments that cause an appreciable reduction in Lp(a). The only existing treatment to reduce Lp(a) is apheresis, which involves the removal of blood plasma from the body by the withdrawal of blood, its separation into plasma and cells, and the reintroduction of the cells, used especially to remove antibodies in treating autoimmune diseases. This process can take between two and four hours and is performed every one to two weeks. Consequently, it is invasive and burdensome for patients, and it is only available at limited centers at a high cost. Apheresis is primarily used in Europe and it is not incorporated in the treatment guidelines in the United States.

11

There are currently no approved lipid-lowering agents specific to Lp(a). Several non-specific agents, largely targeting LDL cholesterol, have been observed to have only marginal or modest Lp(a) reductions, including ezetimibe (7%), niacin therapy (23%), cholesteryl ester transfer protein, or CETP, inhibitors (25-60%), and antisense oligonucleotide-mediated inhibition of apolipoprotein B (ApoB) by mipomersen (26%). Additionally, two monoclonal antibodies that inhibit proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, or PCSK9, have been observed to reduce Lp(a) levels by 20%-30%. However, randomization studies have suggested that to produce a clinically significant reduction in cardiovascular risk, a larger reduction in Lp(a) may be required, something that we believe may be achieved by targeted RNA-based approaches such as ours.

APOLLO Phase 1 Clinical Program

The APOLLO Phase 1 clinical program was a global randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, single-ascending dose and multiple-ascending dose study investigating the safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic response of zerlasiran administered subcutaneously in healthy adults and ASCVD patients with high Lp(a) levels of approximately greater than 60mg/dL or less than 150 nmol/L.

In the APOLLO single dose trial of zerlasiran in healthy adults, participants in the top two zerlasiran dose groups (300 mg and 600 mg) were observed to have experienced up to a 96% and 98% median reduction in Lp(a) levels, respectively, and median reductions of up to 71% and 81% from baseline persisted at 150 days. Other efficacy measures included the effects of zerlasiran on LDL cholesterol and ApoB, both of which are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. The highest doses of zerlasiran reduced LDL cholesterol and ApoB by about 25%. Zerlasiran was observed to be well tolerated with no serious safety concerns reported.

In the APOLLO multiple dose trial of zerlasiran in 36 adults with stable ASCVD and high Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L, zerlasiran dose groups (200 mg, 300 mg and 450 mg) demonstrated a significant reduction from baseline in Lp(a) of up to 99% at 90 days following injection of repeated doses. Lp(a) levels remained approximately 90% lower than baseline at 201 days (end of treatment period) at the two highest doses. A dose dependent reduction in LDL cholesterol and ApoB was also observed. Zerlasiran continued to be observed to be well tolerated with no serious safety issues identified.

ALPACAR-360 Phase 2 Clinical Program

The ALPACAR-360 Phase 2 clinical trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 178 patients with high Lp(a) greater than 125nmol/L at high risk of ASCVD events. Baseline Lp(a) concentration was 213 nmol/L. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three active subcutaneous doses of zerlasiran (300 mg Q16 weeks, 300 mg Q24 weeks, 450 mg Q24 weeks) or placebo. The primary endpoint was time-averaged change in Lp(a) from baseline to 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included time-averaged changes in LDL-C as well as time-averaged Lp(a) to 48 weeks (end of treatment period) and 60 weeks (end of study).

In the ALPACAR-360 Phase 2 clinical trial, zerlasiran produced greater than 80% mean time-averaged placebo-adjusted reductions from baseline in Lp(a) concentrations over 36 weeks. Maximum Lp(a) reductions exceeded 90%. At the final visit, 60 weeks following initial drug administration, reductions in Lp(a) persisted with infrequent dosing. Zerlasiran was also observed to reduce time-averaged LDL-C by ~25-30% and Apo B by ~10-15%. Zerlasiran was observed to be well tolerated with no major safety issues identified.

SLN312

Overview

SLN312 is our siRNA product candidate under our collaboration with AstraZeneca that works by "silencing" ANGPTL3, an important modulator of lipid metabolism. Inhibition of ANGPTL3 has emerged as a promising new therapeutic approach to reduce LDL-C levels independent of the LDL receptor function. Since ANGPTL3 suppresses lipoprotein lipase, or LPL, and endothelial lipase, or EL, activities, its inhibition facilitates the clearance of very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, decreasing both LDL-C and triglyceride, or TG, levels. AstraZeneca shared interim results from its Phase 1 randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing SLN312 in 98 patients with

12

dyslipidemia. Interim results showed SLN312 produced durable dose-dependent reductions in ANGPTL3, triglycerides and atherogenic lipoproteins after single and multiple doses. The strong duration of effect observed supports potential for infrequent dosing. SLN312 was well tolerated with no safety concerns identified. Phase 1 data presentations are planned for medical and research congresses in 2026. On March 4, 2026, AstraZeneca notified Silence that they will not pursue further development beyond Phase 1. We will re-gain full development, manufacturing and commercialization rights globally to this clinical asset following Phase 1 and are evaluating plans for further clinical development.

SLN365

Overview

SLN365 is our potential first-in-class siRNA product candidate that works by "silencing" GPR146, a novel mechanism of action for the management of cholesterol levels in patients, independent of LDLR function. Hypercholesterolemia is a highly prevalent indication with an estimated 1 in 300 individuals worldwide living with the familial form HeFH (heterozygous) and around 1 in 300,000 individuals suffering from the form HoFH (homozygous) globally. SLN365 has demonstrated promising preclinical results in non-human primates and we anticipate additional preclinical data in the second quarter of 2026.

SLN098

Overview

SLN098 is our siRNA product candidate that works by "silencing" INHBE, a novel target for obesity supported by human genetics, strong preclinical data and emerging third-party clinical data demonstrating early efficacy and safety. Despite recent advances in obesity treatment, limitations of current standards of care leave millions at risk of further complications. Around one billion patients worldwide are affected by obesity and associated comorbidities. Current obesity treatments offer weight loss around 15-20% which plateaus after 12-24 months and are associated with up to 40% lean muscle mass loss. More than two thirds of weight loss is regained within the first year after discontinuation of treatment. There is also poor tolerability and compliance with up to 30% of patients discontinuing GLP/GIP agonists treatment.

SLN098 has the opportunity to address unmet needs including increasing fat loss, preventing muscle mass loss and slowing weight regain. SLN098 has demonstrated deep and durable knockdown in nonhuman primates and we anticipate additional disease model data in the second quarter of 2026 to further validate the mechanism of action. We believe there is an opportunity to develop SLN098 either as a monotherapy or add-on to GLP/GIP agonists or as a weight maintenance treatment.

Collaborations

AstraZeneca

In March 2020, we entered into a collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca to discover, develop and commercialize siRNA therapeutics for the treatment of cardiovascular, renal, metabolic and respiratory diseases. Under this agreement, AstraZeneca made an upfront cash payment to us of $20.0 million in May 2020. AstraZeneca made an additional unconditional cash payment to us of $40.0 million which was received in May 2021. In March 2020, an affiliate of AstraZeneca also subscribed for 4,276,580 new ordinary shares for an aggregate subscription price of $20.0 million.

The collaboration covered five targets initially with AstraZeneca opting to extend the collaboration to a further five targets. AstraZeneca agreed to pay us $10.0 million upon the exercise of each option to collaborate on an additional target. For each target selected, we are eligible to receive up to $140.0 million in potential milestone payments upon the achievement of milestones relating to the initiation of specified clinical trials, the acceptance of specified regulatory filings and the first commercial sale in specified jurisdictions. For each target selected, we are

13

also eligible to receive up to $250.0 million in potential commercial milestone payments, upon the achievement of specified annual net sales levels, as well as tiered royalties as a percentage of net sales ranging from the high single digits to the low double digits.

In May 2023, AstraZeneca nominated the first product candidate under our collaboration, SLN312 (ANGPTL3), triggering a $10 million option fee to us. In February 2024, AstraZeneca initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial for SLN312 which triggered another $10 million milestone payment to us. On March 4, 2026, AstraZeneca notified Silence that they will not pursue further development of SLN312 beyond Phase 1. We will re-gain full development, manufacturing and commercialization rights globally to this clinical asset following Phase 1 and are evaluating plans for further clinical development.

Hansoh

In October 2021, we announced a collaboration agreement with Hansoh, one of the leading biopharmaceutical companies in China, to develop siRNAs for three undisclosed targets leveraging our proprietary mRNAi GOLD™ platform. Under the terms of the agreement, Hansoh had the exclusive option to license rights to the first two targets in Greater China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan following the completion of Phase 1 trials. We retained exclusive rights for those two targets in all other territories. We were responsible for all activities up to option exercise and retained responsibility for development outside the China region post phase 1 trials. Hansoh also had the exclusive option to license global rights to a third target at the point of IND filing. Hansoh was responsible for all development activities post option exercise for the third target. Hansoh made a $16 million upfront payment to us in December 2021. We achieved our first $2 million research milestone payment in the Hansoh collaboration in April 2022. In 2023, we achieved two additional preclinical milestones and received $4 million from the Hansoh collaboration. In 2024, we achieved an additional preclinical milestone of $2.0 million from the Hansoh collaboration. In December 2024, Hansoh notified us that it will not pursue further development under the Hansoh collaboration. This action represented the conclusion of all required development activities and commitments under the terms of the Hansoh collaboration and we retain the exclusive rights globally for all three targets evaluated under the Hansoh collaboration.

Competition

The life sciences industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Many of our competitors may have greater experience in research and development, manufacturing, managing clinical trials and/or regulatory compliance than we do, and may be better resourced financially. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing products and new products that may become available in the future. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and recruiting lead clinical trial investigators and establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Companies that complete clinical trials, obtain required regulatory authority approvals and commence commercial sale of their drugs before their competitors may achieve a significant competitive advantage, and our commercial opportunity 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 any products that we may develop and commercialize. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, European Commission or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we obtain approval, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position for either the product or a specific indication before we are able to enter the market. Drugs resulting from our research and development efforts or from our joint efforts with collaboration partners therefore may not be commercially competitive with our competitors’ existing products or products under development. Because our products and many potential competing products are in various stages of preclinical and clinical development, and given the inherent unpredictability of drug development, it is difficult to predict which third parties may provide the most competition, and on what specific basis.

We consider a number of companies to be our competitors in developing RNAi therapeutic products. Some of these companies are seeking, as we are, to develop chemically synthesized siRNA molecules as drugs. Others are

14

following a gene therapy approach, with the goal of treating patients not with synthetic siRNAs but with synthetic, exogenously-introduced genes designed to produce siRNA-like molecules within cells. Additionally, other companies may also develop alternative treatments for the diseases we have identified as being potentially treated with our siRNA molecules. To the extent those alternative treatments are more efficacious, less expensive, more convenient or produce fewer side effects, our market opportunity would be reduced.

We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new products and therapies enter the market and advanced technologies become available. We expect any treatments that we develop and commercialize to compete on the basis of, among other things, efficacy, safety, delivery, patient friendliness, price and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payers.

Intellectual Property

Patents

We actively seek to protect the intellectual property and proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking, maintaining, enforcing and defending patent rights and protecting our related know-how for our siRNA platform technologies such as siRNA stabilization chemistries, as well as for our specific siRNA targeting sequences and related therapeutics and processes, whether developed internally or licensed to third parties. Our success will depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other protections including data/market exclusivity for our product candidates and platform technology, preserve the confidentiality of our know-how and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. See the “Risk Factors-Risks Related to Intellectual Property” section of this report.

Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position early, generally by filing an initial priority filing in the European Patent Office. This is followed by the filing of one or more international patent applications, including a patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, claiming priority from the initial application(s) and then filing regional and national applications for patent grant in territories including, for example, the United States and Europe. In each case, we determine the strategy and territories required after discussion with our patent attorneys and collaboration partners so that we obtain relevant coverage in territories that are commercially important to our technologies and product candidates. With respect to our product candidates and related methods that we intend to develop and commercialize in the normal course of business, we will seek patent protection covering, when legally possible, siRNA sequences alone and with chemical modifications, compositions, methods of use, dosing and formulations. We may also pursue patent protection with respect to manufacturing and drug development processes when possible. We intend to additionally rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity, other regulatory exclusivities and patent term extensions when available. We also rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our underlying platform technology and product candidates. In each case, we seek to balance the value of patent protection against the advantage of keeping know-how confidential.

Issued patents can provide exclusivity on claimed subject matter for varying periods of time, typically starting on the date of patent grant and expiring at the end of the legal term of a patent in the country in which it is granted. In general, patents provide exclusionary rights for 20 years from the effective filing date of a non-provisional patent application in a particular country, or for a PCT international patent application, from the international filing date, assuming all maintenance fees are paid. In some instances, patent terms may be increased or decreased, depending on the laws and regulations of the country or jurisdiction that grants the patent. In the United States, a patent term may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over another patent or as a result of delays in patent prosecution by the patentee. A U.S. patent’s term may be lengthened by a patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in granting a patent. The patent term of a European patent is 20 years from its effective filing date, which, unlike in the United States, is not subject to patent term adjustments in the same way as U.S. patents.

15

The level of protection afforded by a patent may vary and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its claim coverage, claim interpretation and patent law in the country or region that granted the patent, the validity and enforceability of the patent under such laws, and the availability of legal remedies in each particular country.

In certain regions or countries, regulatory-related patent extensions may be available to extend the term of a patent that claims an approved product or method. Regulatory-based patent term extensions allow patentee to recapture a portion of patent term effectively lost as a result of the regulatory review period for a product candidate. The term of a U.S. patent that covers an FDA-approved drug or biologic, for example, may be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug or biologic is under regulatory review. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe, Japan, China and other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug, for example Supplementary Protection Certificates in Europe. In very few jurisdictions (such as in the U.S. and Europe), patent or regulatory exclusivities may potentially be further extended by a pediatric extension, to give an additional six months’ extension, if pre-defined clinical trial data for a pediatric indication are timely submitted and accepted. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for regulatory patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We anticipate that some of our issued patents may be eligible for patent term extensions in certain jurisdictions based on an approved product or method, but such extensions may not be available and therefore its commercial monopoly may be restricted solely to patent term.

As of December 31, 2025, we have more than 200 granted patents and over 100 more pending patent applications in the U.S., Europe, China, and other jurisdictions. These patents and patent applications cover both our innovative platform technologies as well as our products and pipeline candidates. We regularly file priority patent applications to secure early filing dates for novel inventions, with our R&D and Intellectual Property personnel working in coordination to identify and evaluate potential innovations, and to draft and file corresponding applications with the patent office. We file patent applications and maintain patents in multiple commercially or strategically important jurisdictions, such as the U.S., European Union and U.K., China, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Australia, Israel, India, and New Zealand, and other strategically important markets in South America, Asia, and Africa.

Our granted patents and pending patent applications include compositions of matter claims directed to siRNA molecules and compositions for both pre-clinical candidates and clinical products. For example, the patent families for our SLN124 and SLN360 clinical products cover the corresponding siRNA molecules themselves (e.g., specific nucleic acid sequences) and their specific modifications, linkers, formulations, doses, and therapeutic uses. Our patents and patent applications also include claims directed to different aspects of siRNA conjugation, delivery, and chemical modifications providing improvements to the specificity, stability and efficacy of siRNA molecules.

Our earliest filed patent applications directed to 19-mer blunt-ended siRNAs with particular siRNA modification patterns expired in August 2023. Our current patent application families directed to siRNA chemistry toolbox elements, if and when granted, would not be expected to expire until at least 2036. Our current patent families covering siRNA sequences directed to specific target genes and associated uses for our SLN360 and SLN124 product candidates, if and when granted, would not be expected to expire until at least 2038. Our patent portfolio is continuously expanding, providing multiple layers of exclusivity protection for our products and pipeline candidates. In many jurisdictions including the US, Europe, Japan and China, the lifetime of a product-related patent can be further extended beyond their expected natural expiration date, for example to add back a portion of the time that the corresponding product is under clinical or regulatory evaluation, providing additional product exclusivity (typically not more than 5 years from the expected natural expiration date).

16

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Review and Approval of New Drug Products in the United States

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and non-U.S. 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 drug 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 a pending NDA, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, 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:

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

•
submission to the FDA of an 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 clinical trials, in accordance with GCP requirements to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for each indication;

•
payment of user fees;

•
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 the current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, requirements, and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of selected clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of the clinical data; and

•
FDA review and approval of the NDA.

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential pharmacology and toxicology. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical 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 nonclinical 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 result in the FDA not 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, among other things, 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 trial, the parameters to be used

17

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, and the IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted.

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 patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an initial indication of its effectiveness. In phase 2, the drug typically is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. In phase 3, the drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the safety and efficacy 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 SAEs occur. Phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials might 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. 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.

Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an 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. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, certain NDAs or supplements to an NDA 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. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to a product for an indication with orphan designation.

The FDA also may require submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk 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 the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA 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.

18

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

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically 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 are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements.

The testing and approval process for an NDA requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and takes several years to complete. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory 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 in order for FDA to reconsider the application. 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 will typically 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, 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 and use 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, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000, there is no reasonable expectation that sales of the drug in the United States will be sufficient to offset the costs of developing and making the drug available in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If the FDA approves a sponsor’s marketing application for a designated orphan drug for use in the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the sponsor is eligible for a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, during which the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for a drug with the same active moiety and intended for the same disease or condition as the approved orphan drug, except in limited circumstances, such as if a subsequent sponsor demonstrates its product is clinically superior. During a sponsor’s orphan drug exclusivity period, competitors, however, may receive approval for drugs with different active moieties for the same disease or condition as the approved orphan drug, or for drugs with the same active moiety as the approved orphan drug, but for different diseases or conditions. A competitor’s orphan drug exclusivity could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if the competitor obtains approval for a drug with the same active moiety intended for the same disease or condition before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that grounds for revocation of the competitor’s orphan

19

drug designation and orphan drug exclusivity exist, or that our product is clinically superior. Further, if a designated orphan drug receives marketing approval for an indication broader than the rare disease or condition for which it received orphan drug designation, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

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, many changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes or certain labeling changes, are subject to further testing requirements and prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing annual user fee requirements for any marketed products.

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.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including AEs 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 or effectiveness information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess 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, untitled letters, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

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

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

20

•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs 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. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

Federal and State Fraud and Abuse, Data Privacy and Security, and Transparency Laws and Regulations and Foreign Equivalents

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations restrict business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our current and future business operations, including our clinical research activities, and proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships with healthcare providers and other parties through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. These laws include anti-kickback and false claims laws and regulations, data privacy and security, and transparency laws and regulations, including, without limitation, those laws described below.

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 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 the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. 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 qualify for an exemption 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.

A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes penalties against any person who 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.

Federal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibits any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal 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. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of products for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers 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. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse

21

statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, imposes specified requirements on certain types of individuals and entities relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity and their covered subcontractors. 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, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which are not preempted by HIPAA, differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

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

We may also be subject to state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, as well as state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

We may be subject to foreign equivalents of all of the above federal or state legislation. For example, outside the United States, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals are also governed by strict laws, such as national anti-bribery laws of European countries, national sunshine rules, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. 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 in the United States

The future commercial success of our product candidates or any of our collaborators’ ability to commercialize any approved product candidates successfully will depend in part on the extent to which governmental payer programs at the federal and state levels, including Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payers

22

provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our product candidates. Government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations generally decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels for healthcare. In particular, in the United States, private health insurers and other third-party payers often provide reimbursement for products and services based on the level at which the government, through the Medicare or Medicaid programs, provides reimbursement for such treatments. In the United States, the European Union, and other potentially significant markets for our product candidates, government authorities and third-party payers are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of 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. Further, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the United States will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, judicial decisions and laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical coverage and reimbursement policies and pricing in general.

Third-party payers are increasingly imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage and limiting reimbursement levels for medical products. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. In addition, HHS has been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least 7 years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to twenty (20) products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. In addition, federal and state governments reimburse covered prescription drugs at varying rates generally below average wholesale price. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Third-party payers may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drug products for a particular indication. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payer’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payer’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payers will also provide coverage for the drug product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government insurance programs may result in lower reimbursement for our products and product candidates or exclusion of our product candidates from coverage. The cost containment measures that healthcare payers and providers are instituting and any healthcare reform 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. Further, coverage policies and third-party payer reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for products for which we receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

There have been several U.S. government initiatives over the past several years to fund and incentivize certain comparative effectiveness research, including creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the PPACA. 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 product on a profitable basis. The PPACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Since its enactment, there have been amendments and judicial, Congressional and executive branch challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA. For example, on July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, was signed into law, which narrowed access to PPACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the PPACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits that expired at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health

23

insurance. The OBBBA also is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. Congress is considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expired PPACA subsidies.

In addition, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government agencies 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. For example, the current administration has announced agreements with pharmaceutical companies that require the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions, for example, include (1) directing agencies to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (3) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s Strategy Report released in September 2025, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager payment methodologies, among other things. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. In June 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly reduced judicial deference to regulatory agencies, which could increase successful legal challenges to federal regulations affecting our operations. 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. These and other healthcare reform initiatives may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding.

Individual states in the United States also have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs. It is possible that other healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bribery Act and Other Laws

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or 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 United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company 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 United States, can result in criminal and civil fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, oversight, and debarment from government contracts.

Our operations are also subject to non-U.S. anti-corruption laws such as the Bribery Act. As with the FCPA, these laws generally prohibit us and our employees and intermediaries from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing,

24

directly or indirectly, improper or prohibited payments, or anything else of value, to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Under the Bribery Act, we may also be liable for failing to prevent a person associated with us from committing a bribery offense.

We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States and authorities in the European Union, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions and embargoes on certain countries and persons, anti-money laundering laws, import and customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as trade control laws.

Failure to comply with the Bribery Act, the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws and trade control laws could subject us to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses.

Review and Approval of New Drug Products in the European Union

In the European Union, medicinal products are subject to extensive pre- and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the European Union and national levels. An evolving global regulatory view on the classification of RNA therapies could impact the requirements applied to our siRNA compounds. Additionally, there may be local legislation in various EU Member States, which may be more restrictive than the EU legislation, and we would need to comply with such legislation to the extent it applies.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the European Union must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines on GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with the guidelines on cGMP and in a GMP licensed facility, which can be subject to GMP inspections. The sponsor of clinical trials must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU countries, the sponsor is liable to provide “no fault” compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

In the EU, clinical trials are governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or CTR, which entered into application on January 31, 2022, repealing and replacing the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, or CTD. The CTR is intended to harmonize and streamline clinical trial authorizations, simplify adverse-event reporting procedures, improve the supervision of clinical trials and increase transparency. Specifically, the Regulation, which is directly applicable in all EU Member States, introduces a streamlined application procedure through a single-entry point, the "EU portal", the Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application; as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors. A harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials has been introduced and is divided into two parts. Part I assessment is led by the competent authorities of a reference Member State selected by the trial sponsor and relates to clinical trial aspects that are considered to be scientifically harmonized across EU Member States. This assessment is then submitted to the competent authorities of all concerned Member States in which the trial is to be conducted for their review. Part II is assessed separately by the competent authorities and Ethics Committees in each concerned EU Member State. Individual EU Member States retain the power to authorize the conduct of clinical trials on their territory.

The CTR foresaw a three-year transition period that ended on January 31, 2025. Since this date, all new or ongoing trials are subject to the provisions of the CTR. During the development of a medicinal product, the EU and national medicines regulators within the European Union provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EU level, developers of medicinal products can ask the EMA for scientific advice and protocol assistance at any stage of development and regardless of whether the medicinal product is eligible for the centralized authorization procedure or not. Assistance is given by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, on the recommendation of the Scientific Advice Working Party. A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure, but this can be waived for orphan medicinal products. Advice from the EMA is provided based on questions concerning, quality aspects (manufacturing, chemical, pharmaceutical and biological testing of the medicine ), nonclinical testing (toxicological and pharmacological tests designed to show the activity of the medicine

25

in the laboratory) and clinical aspects (appropriateness of studies in patients or healthy volunteers, selection of endpoints), methodological issues (statistical tests to use, data analysis, modelling and simulation), overall development strategy (conditional marketing authorization, bridging strategy for generics, safety database), significant benefit for maintaining orphan designation, and pediatric developments. To the extent that we do obtain such scientific advice in the future, while the company is expected to respect the outcome of the scientific advice procedure, such advice is not legally binding.

Marketing Authorizations

In the EU, medicinal products can only be commercialized after a related marketing authorization, or MA, has been granted. To obtain an MA for a product in the EU, an applicant must submit a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or one of the procedures administered by the competent authorities of EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure or mutual recognition procedure). An MA may be granted only to an applicant established in the EU.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA by the European Commission that is valid throughout the EEA (which is comprised of the 27 EU Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) products designated as orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products, or ATMPs, and (iv) products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, authorization through the centralized procedure is optional on related approval.

Under the centralized procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, conducts the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the centralized procedure is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product targeting an unmet medical need is expected to be of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts a request for accelerated assessment, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops). The CHMP can, however, revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized MA procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each EU Member State in which the product is to be marketed. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU Member State prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU Member States who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU Member State cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potential serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the Heads of Medicines Agencies’ Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human, or CMDh, for review. The subsequent decision of the European Commission is binding on all EU Member States.

26

The mutual recognition procedure allows companies that have a medicinal product already authorized in one EU Member State to apply for this authorization to be recognized by the competent authorities in other EU Member States. Like the decentralized procedure, the mutual recognition procedure is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the EU Member States of the MA of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other EU Member States. The holder of a national MA may submit an application to the competent authority of an EU Member State requesting that this authority recognize the MA delivered by the competent authority of another EU Member State.

An MA has, in principle, an initial validity of five years. The MA may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU Member State in which the original MA was granted. To support the application, the MA holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the Common Technical Document providing up-to-date data concerning the quality, safety and efficacy of the product, including all variations introduced since the MA was granted, at least nine months before the MA ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may decide on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five year renewal period for the MA. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the MA shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (for a centralized MA) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the Priority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicinal products that target unmet medical needs. Eligible products must target conditions for which there is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EU or, if there is, the new medicinal product will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods of therapy or improving existing ones. Benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted.

In the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The European Commission may grant a conditional MA for a medicinal product if it is demonstrated that all of the following criteria are met: (i) the benefit-risk balance of the medicinal product is positive; (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide comprehensive data post-authorization; (iii) the medicinal product fulfils an unmet medical need; and (iv) the benefit of the immediate availability to patients of the medicinal product is greater than the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and must be renewed annually until all related conditions have been fulfilled. Once any pending studies are provided, the conditional MA can be converted into a traditional MA. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA and approved by the European Commission, the MA will cease to be renewed.

An MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” where the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. These circumstances may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the state of scientific knowledge at that time, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. Like a conditional MA, an MA granted in exceptional circumstances is reserved to medicinal products intended to be authorized for treatment of rare diseases or unmet medical needs for which the applicant does not hold a complete data set that is required for the grant of a standard MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, an applicant for authorization in exceptional circumstances is not subsequently required to provide the missing data. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually, and the MA will be withdrawn if the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

27

Data Exclusivity

The EU provides opportunities for data and market exclusivity related to MAs. Upon receiving an MA, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA 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. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

There is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product, for example, because of differences in raw materials or manufacturing processes. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided in support of the MAA, and guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product. There are no such guidelines for complex biological products, such as gene or cell therapy medicinal products, and so it is unlikely that biosimilars of those products will currently be approved in the European Union. However, guidance from the EMA states that they will be considered in the future in light of the scientific knowledge and regulatory experience gained at the time.

Pediatric Development

In the EU, Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that all MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of trials conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee or PDCO. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the medicinal product for which MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures provided in the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all EU Member States and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for a six-month extension to the Supplementary Protection Certificate, or SPC, if any is in effect at the time of authorization or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of orphan market exclusivity.

Orphan Designation

In the EU, Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as implemented by Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provides that a medicinal product can be designated as an orphan medicinal product by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish that: (i) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions; (ii) either (a) such conditions affect not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in developing the medicinal product; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory authorized method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition that has been authorized in the EU, or even if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

28

Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 sets out further provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product. An application for the designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product must be submitted at any stage of development of the medicinal product but before filing of an MAA. An MA for an orphan medicinal product may only include indications designated as orphan. For non-orphan indications treated with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, a separate marketing authorization has to be sought.

Orphan medicinal product designation entitles an applicant to incentives such fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Upon grant of a marketing authorization, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication, which means that the EMA cannot accept another marketing authorization application or accept an application to extend for a similar product and the European Commission cannot grant a marketing authorization for the same indication for a period of ten years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The period of market exclusivity may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria on the basis of which it received orphan medicinal product destination, including where it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, an MA may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period if: (i) if the applicant consents to a second original orphan medicinal product application, (ii) if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities; or (iii) if the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. A company may voluntarily remove a product from the register of orphan products.

Post-Approval Controls

Where an MA is granted in relation to a medicinal product in the EU, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of regulatory requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. The holder of an MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

All new MAAs must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk- minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

Other EU Compliance Requirements

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EU Member States’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. General requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products, such as direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products are established in EU law. However, the details are governed by regulations in individual EU Member States and can differ from one country to another. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, which may require approval by the competent national authorities in connection with an MA. The SmPC is the document

29

that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EU.

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, described above, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians and other health care professionals to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. Interactions between pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals are governed by strict laws, such as national anti-bribery laws of European countries, national sunshine rules, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians and other health care professionals in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with health care professionals may require prior notification or approval by the health care professional’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Pricing and Reimbursement in the European Union

Governments influence the price of medicinal products in the European Union through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, process is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. In December 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, or HTA Regulation, was adopted. The HTA Regulation is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and establishes the framework for EU level joint clinical assessments, joint scientific consultations, and the early identification of emerging health technologies. The HTA Regulation entered into application on January 12, 2025, through a phased implementation based on the type of product (i.e. oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products as of 2025, orphan medicinal products as of 2028, and all other medicinal products by 2030) and is intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the European Union. The Regulation permits EU Member States to use common tools, methodologies, and procedures and requires them to rely on EU‑level joint clinical assessment reports for the clinical components of their national HTA evaluations. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ("MHRA") is the United Kingdom’s standalone regulator for medicinal products and medical devices.

While the United Kingdom’s regulatory framework for clinical trials was historically based on the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, which implemented the former EU Clinical Trials Directive, this has been significantly reformed by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. The new legislation, which was adopted in April 2025, modernizes the United Kingdom's approach to make it a more attractive location for research, and includes key features such as: (i) a risk-proportionate approach, including a notification scheme for lower-risk trials; (ii) a combined review process integrating ethics committee and regulatory

30

approvals into a single, streamlined pathway; (iii) enhanced transparency requirements mandating registration of clinical trials in a public registry and publication of trial results within 12 months of trial completion (with scope for deferrals in certain circumstances); (iv) greater flexibility to support innovation in clinical trial design; and (v) measures to promote patient and public involvement. The amendments will become applicable on April 28, 2026, following a one-year transition period.

Marketing authorizations in the United Kingdom are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916), as amended. In order to obtain a United Kingdom MA to commercialize products in the United Kingdom, an applicant must be established in the United Kingdom and must follow one of the United Kingdom national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures. Applications are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916) and are made electronically through the MHRA Submissions Portal. The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, a 150-day assessment (subject to clock-stops) and a rolling review procedure. The rolling-review procedure permits the separate or joint submission of quality, non-clinical, and clinical data to the MHRA which can be reviewed on a rolling basis. After an application under the rolling-review procedure has been validated, the decision should be received within 100 days (subject to clock-stops).

In addition, since January 1, 2024, the MHRA may rely on the International Recognition Procedure (“IRP”), when reviewing certain types of MAAs. Pursuant to the IRP, the MHRA will take into account the expertise and decision-making of trusted regulatory partners (e.g., the regulatory in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, the U.S.A. and the EU). The MHRA will conduct a targeted assessment of IRP applications but retain the authority to reject applications if the evidence provided is considered insufficiently robust. The IRP allows medicinal products approved by such trusted regulatory partners that meet certain criteria to undergo a fast-tracked MHRA review to obtain and/or update a MA in the United Kingdom. Applications should be decided within a maximum of 60 days if there are no major objections identified that cannot be resolved within such 60-day period and the approval from the trusted regulatory partner selected has been granted within the previous 2 years or if there are such major objections identified or such approval hasn’t been granted within the previous 2 years within 110 days. Applicants can submit initial MAAs to the IRP but the procedure can also be used throughout the lifecycle of a product for post-authorization procedures including line extensions, variations and renewals.

All existing marketing authorizations of the EU for centrally authorized products were automatically converted or grandfathered into the United Kingdom’s marketing authorization, effective in Great Britain only, free of charge on January 1, 2021, unless the marketing authorization holder opted-out of this possibility. On January 1, 2025, the “Windsor Framework” came into effect, reintegrated Northern Ireland under the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products and introducing a United Kingdom-wide licensing process for medicines.

There is no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation for medicinal products in the UK. Instead, the MHRA reviews applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding marketing authorization application. The criteria are essentially the same as those in the EU but have been tailored for the market. This includes the criterion that prevalence of the condition in the United Kingdom, rather than the EU, must not be more than five in 10,000. Upon the grant of a marketing authorization with orphan status, the medicinal product will benefit from up to 10 years of market exclusivity from similar products in the approved orphan indication. The start of this market exclusivity period will be set from the date of first approval of the product in the United Kingdom.

Sales and Marketing

Given our stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization or distribution capabilities. Should any of our product candidates be approved for commercialization, we intend to develop a plan to commercialize them in the United States and other key markets, through internal infrastructure and/or external partnerships in a manner that will enable us to realize the full commercial value of our programs.

Manufacturing and Source of Supply

We do not currently own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of clinical or commercial quantities of our product candidates. Furthermore, there is limited capacity at contract manufacturers that operate under the cGMP requirements of the FDA to meet our timelines and production needs. We currently rely and intend to continue to rely

31

on contract development and manufacturing organizations, or CDMOs, for both drug substance and drug product. Currently, we contract with eleven third-party manufacturers for the manufacture of our development pipeline. We may engage additional third-party manufacturers to support any clinical trials for our product candidates as well as commercialization thereof, if approved, in the U.S. or other jurisdictions. In addition, as our production needs increase, we intend to recruit additional experienced personnel to manage the CDMOs producing our product candidate and other product candidates or products that we may develop in the future.

We rely on CDMOs to perform all chemistry, manufacturing, and controls activities. Our agreements with CDMOs may obligate them to develop or transfer upstream and downstream processes, develop or transfer drug product manufacturing processes, develop or transfer suitable analytical methods for release and stability testing and qualify these methods for use with our products, produce drug substance for preclinical testing, and produce drug substance or drug product under cGMP for use in clinical studies among other activities. In addition, we rely on CDMOs to operate facilities that meet regulatory requirements for production and testing of clinical and commercial products and to work closely with us to validate manufacturing processes prior to commercial launch. We qualify CDMOs prior to initiation of cGMP regulated activities and periodically thereafter as part of the supplier qualification program. We oversee CDMOs by performing technical and quality assurance review and/or approval of cGMP documentation, establishing quality agreements to define responsibilities and expectations for goods and services, and observing production and testing activities as a person-in-plant, among other activities.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2025, we had 88 full-time employees who work primarily in the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States. Of these employees, 62 are engaged in research and development activities and 26 are engaged in business development, finance, information systems, facilities, human resources or administrative support. Further, we have 26 employees who hold M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. None of our employees are subject to collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationships with our employees to be good.

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

Corporate Information

We were incorporated as a public limited company under the laws of England and Wales on November 18, 1994, under the name Stanford Rook Holdings plc with company number 2992058. In July 2005, we acquired Atugen AG, a company specializing in siRNA. On April 26, 2007, we changed our name to Silence Therapeutics plc. Our principal executive offices are located at 12 Hammersmith Grove, London W6 7AP, United Kingdom and our telephone number is +44 20 3457 6900. Our registered office address is 27 Eastcastle Street, London, W1W 8DH, United Kingdom. Our ADSs were listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “SLN” in September 2020. In June 2021, we moved our Nasdaq listing from the Nasdaq Capital Market tier to the Nasdaq Global Market tier. In November 2021, the admission of our ordinary shares to trading on AIM of the London Stock Exchange was cancelled. Our website address is www.silence-therapeutics.com. Our agent for service of process in the United States is Silence Therapeutics Inc., c/o Harvard Business Services, Inc., 16192 Coastal Hwy, Lewes, Delaware 19958, USA.

Available Information

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to reports filed pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. Such reports and other information filed by us with the SEC are available free of charge on our website at www.silence-therapeutics.com when such reports are available on the SEC’s website. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. The information contained on the websites referenced in this Annual Report is not incorporated by reference into this filing. Further, our references to website links are intended to be inactive textual references only.

32