NASDAQ: TRVI

In June 2025, we announced positive topline results from our Phase 2b CORAL trial, which was a dose-ranging study evaluating the efficacy, safety and tolerability of Haduvio for IPF-related chronic cough. The Phase 2b CORAL trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm design that evaluated three different dose groups of Haduvio (108 mg BID, 54 mg BID and 27 mg BID) as compared to placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint for the trial was the relative change in 24-hour cough frequency (coughs per hour) for the modified intent-to-treat, or mITT, population at the end of Week 6 versus Baseline for Haduvio compared to placebo, as measured via an objective cough monitor. The mITT population consists of all randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug or placebo (n=165). The primary efficacy endpoint in the Phase 2b CORAL trial was achieved, demonstrating statistically significant reductions in 24-hour cough frequency across all dose groups at Week 6. The 108 mg BID, 54 mg BID and 27 mg BID dose groups achieved statistically significant reductions from Baseline of 60.2% (p<0.0001), 53.4% (p<0.0001), and 47.9% (p<0.01), respectively, compared to a placebo reduction from Baseline of 16.9%.

We have completed an End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA. At the meeting, we gained overall alignment on the plan for the remaining clinical studies to potentially support an NDA submission for nalbuphine ER, including two pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials and agreement on the remaining Phase 1 clinical studies. The Phase 3 trials will run in parallel, and we remain on track to initiate the first Phase 3 trial in the second quarter of 2026 and the second Phase 3 trial in the second half of 2026. The first of the two Phase 3 trials is planned to enroll approximately 300 patients and have 52 weeks of fixed dosing with nalbuphine ER 54 mg twice-a-day (BID), with the primary endpoint at 24 weeks of fixed dosing. The second Phase 3 trial is planned to enroll approximately 130 patients with and have 12 weeks of fixed dosing with nalbuphine ER 54 mg BID. The primary efficacy endpoint for both trials will be the relative change from Baseline in 24-hour cough frequency (coughs per hour), as determined by an objective cough monitor, for nalbuphine ER compared with placebo. These trial designs are subject to final review of the protocols by the FDA.

Non-IPF ILD-related Chronic Cough Program. We also plan to develop Haduvio for the treatment of non-IPF ILD-related chronic cough. Many patients diagnosed with non-IPF ILD suffer from a dry, non-productive chronic cough that is as disruptive as the cough associated with IPF. Cough may be an independent predictor of disease progression in non-IPF ILDs, and therefore we believe chronic cough may contribute to the progression of the underlying disease and worsening health outcomes.

Approximately 228,000 adults in the U.S. and greater than 1 million adults worldwide are believed to have ILDs other than IPF. In addition, up to 50%-60% of non-IPF ILD patients are reported to suffer from an uncontrolled chronic cough. There are no approved therapies for the treatment of non-IPF ILD-related chronic cough. We plan to initiate an

1

adaptive design Phase 2b clinical trial for the treatment of patients with non-IPF ILD-related chronic cough in the second half of 2026, subject to review of the protocol for the trial by the FDA.

RCC Program. We are developing Haduvio for the treatment of RCC, which affects approximately 2-3 million adults in the U.S. and is related to biological changes in the central and peripheral nervous systems that lower the threshold of the cough reflex. It is highly disruptive and accompanied by a wide range of complications, ranging from urinary incontinence in females to sleep disruption and social embarrassment that causes significant social and economic burden for patients and those around them.

In March 2025, we announced positive topline data from our Phase 2a clinical trial of Haduvio in patients with RCC, which we refer to as the Phase 2a RIVER trial. The Phase 2a RIVER trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-treatment, two-period, crossover study that was designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, tolerability and dosing of Haduvio for the treatment of patients with RCC. The primary endpoint of the trial was the mean change in 24-hour cough frequency, as determined by an objective cough monitor, for the full analysis set population. In the trial, Haduvio met the primary endpoint at Day 21 with a statistically significant reduction in the objective 24-hour cough frequency of 67% from Baseline and 57% from Baseline on a placebo-adjusted basis (p<0.0001). Planned analyses of all pre-specified secondary endpoints, including patient reported endpoints, at the end of treatment were also statistically significant. The safety results of the trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Haduvio from previous trials in other patient populations and there were no serious adverse events reported in the trial.

We expect to initiate a Phase 2b trial of Haduvio for the treatment of patients with RCC in the second quarter of 2026, which we are planning to conduct in the United Kingdom, Canada, and possibly other European countries. We expect the primary efficacy endpoint of the trial will be the mean change in 24-hour cough frequency, as determined by an objective cough monitor, and we plan to use the trial to determine the doses to be evaluated in the Phase 3 clinical trial as well as to further characterize safety in this specific patient population. The trial is subject to final review of the protocol by regulatory authorities.

Other NDA Supportive Studies. We also plan to continue to progress and advance NDA supportive studies necessary for regulatory approval, including Phase 1 clinical studies such as completing our respiratory safety study, and conducting drug-drug interaction, food effect, and hepatic and renal impairment studies.

Commercialization of Haduvio. We have retained worldwide commercial rights for Haduvio.

Nalbuphine Mechanistic Rationale

Nalbuphine is a mixed kappa-opioid receptor agonist and a mu-opioid receptor antagonist. The kappa- and mu-opioid receptors are known to be critical mediators of cough. Nalbuphine has been approved and marketed as an injectable for pain indications for decades in the U.S. and Europe. Nalbuphine’s mechanism of action also mitigates the risk of abuse associated with mu-opioid agonists because it antagonizes, or blocks, the mu-opioid receptor.

Modulation of opioid receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems, either naturally or with drugs, results in multiple signaling actions at the cellular level. The receptor dynamics are complex and receptor signaling differs depending on whether the receptor is being exposed to an agonist or antagonist opioid drug. Agonists activate the receptors to which they bind, and antagonists bind to receptors, and can block the activity of agonists. In addition, opioid drugs of the same class may have different effects depending on their pharmacological properties.

In addition to the individual cellular dynamics, published research also supports the phenomena of network interaction dynamics, where activation of one type of opioid receptor type at one anatomical location can influence the activity of a different type of opiate receptor located at a different anatomical location. For example, published research has shown evidence of signaling between cell groups where kappa-opioid receptor activation on specific cells can antagonize mu-opioid receptor activation on other cells. As a result of these apparent network interaction dynamics between the kappa- and mu-opioid receptors, we believe that simultaneously modulating both kappa- and mu-opioid receptors with a single drug offers significant therapeutic potential in diseases that are mediated through these receptors.

Published research suggests that in certain diseases the concentration and expression of opioid receptors is different for people with the disease as compared to healthy individuals. We believe these differences in opioid receptor concentration and expression between healthy individuals and people with disease suggest that opioid drugs targeting these receptors have the potential to offer therapeutic benefit to people suffering from these diseases.

2

As shown in the diagram below, kappa- and mu-opioid receptors are naturally concentrated in several areas of the body, including in the forebrain, brain stem, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves innervating the lung, which are the areas of the body involved in the physiology of chronic cough.

With respect to cough, kappa- and mu-opioid receptors in the forebrain, brain stem, lungs and the peripheral nerves innervating the lung are believed to be involved in mediating respiration and the cough reflex. While there are no approved opioid therapeutics for suppression of cough in humans, mu-agonist opioids have been used clinically to suppress cough.

Haduvio

Haduvio is an oral extended-release formulation of nalbuphine, a small molecule and is in the opioid mixed agonist-antagonist class of drugs. Nalbuphine is a marketed drug currently available only as nalbuphine hydrochloride for injection, a generic equivalent to Nubain, which has been approved in the U.S. and Europe for use in the relief of moderate to severe pain for decades. Nalbuphine is not currently classified as a controlled substance in the U.S. or most of Europe and is not commercially available in an oral dosage form.

We have leveraged the known mechanism and proven biological activity of nalbuphine in pain to expedite the clinical development of Haduvio. We have also drawn on the safety and tolerability data from eight prior clinical trials of Haduvio conducted by Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., which subsequently merged into Endo, Inc. and which has since merged with Mallinckrodt plc which was then renamed Keenova Therapeutics plc, or Keenova, for which we have licensed rights from Keenova, including two Phase 2 clinical trials of Haduvio for the treatment of pain, to support our clinical development efforts.

Our Haduvio Development Programs

IPF-related Chronic Cough Program

Overview

IPF is a progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease associated with high mortality rates. After IPF diagnosis, the median survival is 3 to 5 years, during which time patients suffer from chronic cough and dyspnea. IPF-related chronic cough is a condition with high unmet need and no FDA-approved therapies. There are approximately 150,000 U.S. patients with IPF, and two-thirds of these patients are faced with uncontrolled chronic cough. The impact of chronic cough is significant, with patients coughing up to 1,500 times per day. A higher cough severity, and any associated damage, may lead to a higher risk of morbidity and mortality, including worsening disease, a higher risk of progression, increased respiratory hospitalizations, and a decline in patients’ physical, psychological, and social quality of life.

The opioid class of drugs has demonstrated the ability to suppress cough and is used in the clinical management of cough. There is also preclinical and clinical evidence that mixed agonist-antagonist drugs can also be effective in treating cough.

3

Clinical Development

We have conducted two Phase 2 trials of Haduvio for IPF-related chronic cough and plan to initiate our Phase 3 trials consisting of two Phase 3 trials, the first of which we expect to initiate in the second quarter of 2026.

Phase 2b CORAL Clinical Trial

In June 2025, we announced positive topline results of our Phase 2b CORAL trial, which was a dose-ranging study evaluating the efficacy, safety and tolerability of Haduvio for IPF-related chronic cough. The Phase 2b CORAL trial (N=165) was conducted at multiple sites in ten countries and used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm design, which evaluated three doses of Haduvio as compared to placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint for the trial was the relative change in 24-hour cough frequency (coughs per hour) for the modified intent-to-treat, or mITT, population at the end of Week 6 versus Baseline for Haduvio compared to placebo, as measured via an objective cough monitor. The mITT population consists of all randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint in the Phase 2b CORAL trial was achieved, demonstrating statistically significant reductions in 24-hour cough frequency across all dose groups at Week 6. The 108 mg BID, 54 mg BID and 27 mg BID dose groups achieved statistically significant reductions from Baseline of 60.2% (p<0.0001), 53.4% (p<0.0001), and 47.9% (p<0.01), respectively, compared to a placebo reduction from Baseline of 16.9%1.

The table below shows the data for the primary endpoint – Relative Change from Baseline in 24-hour Cough Frequency (coughs per hour) at Week 6:

Placebo1

(N=39)

Haduvio

27 mg BID

(N=42)

Haduvio

54 mg BID

(N=43)

Haduvio

108 mg BID

(N=40)

Baseline 24-hour Cough Frequency

(coughs/hour)

29.4

24.6

28.0

31.5

Relative Change from Baseline in

24-hour Cough Frequency at Week 6

-16.9%

-47.9%

(p<0.01)

-53.4% (p<0.0001)

-60.2% (p<0.0001)

Placebo-adjusted difference

-

-30.9%

-36.5%

-43.3%

1One placebo patient with an extreme outlier value at Week 6 was excluded from the modified intent-to-treat (“mITT”) population. Inclusion of the patient in the placebo group would have resulted in an increased cough frequency from Baseline in the placebo group and much greater placebo-adjusted differences.

Additional Trial Results

•
A rapid reduction was seen in 24-hour cough frequency as early as Week 2 with Haduvio, the first time point measured.

•
A 50% reduction in 24-hour cough frequency at Week 6 vs Baseline was seen in 65% of patients on 108 mg BID Haduvio (p<0.001), 63% of patients on 54 mg BID Haduvio (p<0.001) and 60% of patients on 27 mg BID Haduvio (p<0.001) dose groups, compared to 19% of placebo patients.

•
A statistically significant response was observed on the cough-severity numerical rating scale (CS-NRS), a secondary endpoint, at Week 6 on Haduvio in both the 108 mg BID and 54 mg BID dose groups. There was a mean reduction on a 0 – 10 scale of 3.0 points on the 108 mg BID (p<0.05), 3.2 points on the 54 mg BID (p<0.01) and 2.0 points on the 27 mg BID (p=0.46) dose groups compared to a 1.5-point reduction on placebo at Week 6.

•
The 108 mg BID and 54 mg BID dose groups were statistically significant (p<0.01) on the patient-reported outcome E-RS®: IPF Cough Subscale, a secondary endpoint, with mean relative change from Baseline of -42.4% and -43.1%, respectively at Week 6, compared to -23% for those on placebo at Week 6. The 27 mg BID dose group was not statistically significant with a mean relative change from Baseline of –31.6%.

•
Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were similar in the combined Haduvio groups (5.6%) and placebo group (5.0%). The safety profile observed in the trial was generally consistent with the known safety profile of Haduvio from previous trials. The most common adverse events experienced included: nausea, vomiting, constipation, dizziness, headache, fatigue, somnolence, and dry mouth. Serious adverse events (all non-fatal) were reported for four patients (10.0%) in the placebo group and for two patients (1.6%) across all Haduvio

4

doses combined.

•
The trial showed positive results with Haduvio on the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) Total Score for the 108 mg BID and 54 mg BID dose groups, increasing the LCQ score by 3.4 points (p=0.01) and 3.7 points (p=0.01), respectively. A 1.3-point increase from Baseline is considered clinically meaningful.

Phase 2a CANAL Clinical Trial

Prior to our Phase 2b CORAL trial, we conducted our Phase 2a CANAL trial. The Phase 2a CANAL trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-treatment, two-period, crossover study that was designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Haduvio for IPF-related chronic cough that we conducted at multiple sites in the United Kingdom. Patients were randomized into one of two treatment arms. The patients in the first treatment arm received escalating doses of Haduvio for three weeks, which was followed by a two-week washout period and then a three-week treatment period during which they received placebo. The patients in the second treatment arm received placebo during the first three-week treatment period, followed by a two-week washout period, then received escalating doses of Haduvio during the second three-week treatment period. During the active treatment periods, Haduvio was studied over a dosing range starting at 27 mg once daily and titrated in steps to 162 mg twice daily. The primary efficacy endpoint of the trial was mean percent change in daytime cough frequency for Haduvio treatment compared to placebo treatment. Secondary endpoints in the trial included assessments of fatigue, dyspnea or shortness of breath and cough frequency and severity.

In total, 42 patients in the trial received Haduvio. In the full analysis data set, Haduvio demonstrated statistically significant results for the primary efficacy endpoint of daytime cough frequency reduction (p<0.0001) and for key secondary endpoints on patient and clinician reported outcomes. The trial results comparing patients randomized to Haduvio or placebo showed that:

•
On the primary efficacy endpoint, Haduvio patients had a 75.1% reduction in daytime cough frequency at end of treatment period vs. study Baseline compared to placebo patients who had a 22.6% reduction, a 52.5% placebo-adjusted change (p<0.0001);

•
Haduvio patients had a 76.1% reduction in 24-hour cough frequency at end of treatment period vs. study Baseline compared to placebo patients who had a 25.3% reduction, a 50.8% placebo-adjusted change (p<0.0001);

•
In a post-hoc analysis, 97% of Haduvio patients had at least a 30% reduction in 24-hour cough frequency compared to 35% of placebo patients, signifying a clinically meaningful reduction in cough (p<0.0001);

•
Patients on Haduvio experienced a statistically significant improvement as measured by their patient reported outcomes compared to placebo over the three-week treatment period in the EXACT2: Cough Frequency Score (p=0.001) and Cough Severity Numerical Rating Scale (p=0.0001); and

•
Based on the Clinical Global Impression of Change rating measuring clinicians’ view of change since the start of the trial, 62% of Haduvio patients improved vs. Baseline compared to 19% of placebo patients (p=0.01).

The safety results of the trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Haduvio from previous trials in other patient populations. There were two SAEs reported during the trial, neither of which was considered by the investigator to be treatment related. Adverse events most commonly observed during the trial were nausea, fatigue, constipation, dizziness, somnolence, vomiting, headache, anxiety and depression.

Next Steps

Based on the results of these trials, and discussions with the FDA at our End-of-Phase 2 meeting, we expect to initiate our Phase 3 trials in the second quarter of 2026 and will include two Phase 3 trials. The Phase 3 trials will run in parallel, and we remain on track to initiate the first Phase 3 trial in the second quarter of 2026 and the second Phase 3 trial in the second half of 2026. The first of the two Phase 3 trials is planned to enroll approximately 300 patients and have 52 weeks of fixed dosing with nalbuphine ER 54 mg twice-a-day (BID), with the primary endpoint at 24 weeks of fixed dosing. The second Phase 3 trial is planned to enroll approximately 130 patients and have 12 weeks of fixed dosing with nalbuphine ER 54 mg BID. The primary efficacy endpoint for both trials will be the relative change from Baseline in 24-hour cough frequency (coughs per hour), as determined by an objective cough monitor, for nalbuphine ER compared with placebo. These trial designs are subject to final review of the protocols by the FDA.

5

Non-IPF ILD-related Chronic Cough Program

Similar to IPF, non-IPF ILDs are characterized by fibrosis of lung tissue leading to a loss of lung function and reduced life expectancy. Many patients diagnosed with non-IPF ILD also suffer from a dry, non-productive chronic cough.

Approximately 228,000 adults in the U.S. and greater than 1 million adults worldwide are believed to have ILDs other than IPF. In addition, up to 50%-60% of non-IPF ILD patients are reported to suffer from uncontrolled chronic cough. There are no approved therapies for the treatment of non-IPF ILD-related chronic cough.

We plan to initiate an adaptive design Phase 2b clinical trial for the treatment of patients with non-IPF ILD-related chronic cough in the second half of 2026, subject to review of the protocol for the trial by the FDA.

RCC Program

Overview

Chronic cough affects up to 10% of the adult population and is defined as a persistent cough lasting more than eight weeks, despite treatment for an underlying condition. RCC affects approximately 2-3 million adults in the U.S. and is related to biological changes in the central and peripheral nervous systems that lower the threshold of the cough reflex. It is highly disruptive and accompanied by a wide range of complications, ranging from urinary incontinence in females to sleep disruption and social embarrassment that causes significant social and economic burden for patients and those around them. When a cause for RCC is identifiable, it is most commonly asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD, non-asthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis, and upper airway cough syndrome or post-nasal drip. The RCC population is generally considered to also include those with unexplained chronic cough where no cough-associated conditions can be identified.

Phase 2a RIVER Clinical Trial

In March 2025, we announced positive topline data from our Phase 2a clinical trial of Haduvio for the treatment of patients with RCC, which we refer to as the Phase 2a RIVER trial. The Phase 2a RIVER trial was a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-treatment, two-period, crossover study that was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety, tolerability and dosing of Haduvio for the treatment of patients with RCC. Each treatment period lasted 21 days, separated by a 21-day washout period, and patients on Haduvio had their dose titrated from 27 mg once a day (QD) up to 108 mg twice a day (BID) across the 21-day dosing period. We conducted this trial at multiple sites in the United Kingdom and Canada. The primary endpoint of the study was a mean change in 24-hour cough frequency using an objective cough monitor in the overall population.

In total, 66 patients received Haduvio. In the full analysis data set, Haduvio demonstrated statistically significant results for the primary endpoint of 24-hour cough frequency reduction (p<0.0001) and for secondary endpoints on patient and clinician reported outcomes. The trial results comparing patients randomized to Haduvio or placebo showed that:

•
On the primary endpoint, Haduvio patients had a 67% reduction in 24-hour cough frequency at end of treatment period compared to placebo patients who had a 10% reduction, with a 57% placebo-adjusted change from Baseline (p<0.0001);

•
Haduvio demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in 24-hour cough frequency of 66% in the severe cough (20+ coughs/hour) subgroup (N=40) (p<0.0001) and 68% in the moderate cough (10-19 coughs/hour) subgroup (N=13) (p<0.0001);

•
84% of Haduvio patients had at least a 30% reduction in 24-hour cough frequency vs. Baseline, as compared to 29% of placebo patients, a difference of 55% (p<0.0001); and

•
A statistically significant reduction in 24-hour cough frequency, as measured by an objective cough monitor, was seen as early as Day 7 (27 mg BID) for patients on Haduvio (p<0.0001).

Patients on Haduvio experienced a statistically significant improvement in patient reported outcomes compared to placebo as early as Day 7 (27 mg BID) in the Cough Severity Visual Analog Scale and the Patient-Reported Cough Frequency. The safety results of the trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Haduvio from previous trials in other patient populations. Adverse events most commonly observed during the trial were constipation, nausea, somnolence, headache, dizziness and fatigue and there were no treatment emergent SAEs.

Next Steps

Based on these results, we plan to initiate a Phase 2b trial of Haduvio for the treatment of patients with RCC in the second quarter of 2026, which we are planning to conduct in the United Kingdom, Canada, and possibly other European countries. We expect the objectives for the trial will be to determine the doses to be evaluated in the Phase 3 clinical trial as

6

well as to further characterize safety in this specific patient population. The trial is subject to final review of the protocol by regulatory authorities.

Other Haduvio Development Work

We have agreed to the remaining Phase 1 studies required for a submission of an NDA for IPF-related chronic cough. These include studies such as drug-drug interaction, hepatic, renal and food effect studies.

Human Abuse Potential Study

In December 2024, we announced positive topline results from our human abuse potential, or HAP, study which compared the abuse potential of oral nalbuphine to IV butorphanol. The injectable version of nalbuphine is currently unscheduled in the U.S. by the Drug Enforcement Agency. The study was a randomized, double-blind, active and placebo-controlled five-way crossover design. The study was conducted in two parts. The first part of the study characterized various IV butorphanol doses in order to select a dose to be studied. The second part of the study was designed to utilize the selected dose and compare oral nalbuphine relative to IV butorphanol using the study metrics. The study demonstrated a statistically significant lower "Drug Liking" for the clinical doses of oral nalbuphine (81mg and 162mg) compared to 6mg IV butorphanol. The supratherapeutic dose of oral nalbuphine (486mg) was numerically lower than the 6mg IV butorphanol for “Drug Liking” but the results were not statistically significant.

Primary Endpoint*

IV butorphanol

Oral nalbuphine

Oral nalbuphine

Oral nalbuphine

Placebo

6mg

81mg

162mg

486mg

(N=52)

(N=52)

(N=52)

(N=52)

(N=52)

Mean Emax for "Drug Liking"

51.8

82.3

71.2

74.5

81.1

P-value difference

vs IV butorphanol 6mg

p<0.0001

—

p<0.0001

p=0.0008

p=0.3221

*All analyses performed were on the Modified Completer Population, which was prespecified in the statistical analysis plan for the primary endpoint.

Secondary endpoints included pharmacodynamic markers and patient reported outcomes, which were generally consistent with the primary endpoint. No SAEs were reported in the study.

Secondary Endpoints

IV butorphanol

Oral nalbuphine

Oral nalbuphine

Oral nalbuphine

Placebo

6mg

81mg

162mg

486mg

(N=52)

(N=52)

(N=52)

(N=52)

(N=52)

Mean Emax for "Take Drug Again"

53.4

62.8

71.0

67.3

64.2

Mean Emax for "I Feel High"

3.4

77.6

35.6

39.3

59.2

Mean Emax for "I Feel Good"

2.7

71.9

40.3

40.8

61.0

The results of the HAP study will be included in the 8-factor analysis of the abuse potential of nalbuphine for nalbuphine ER that would be submitted as part of any NDA submission to inform scheduling considerations.

Drug-Drug Interaction Study

In October 2025, we completed our Phase 1 drug-drug interaction study to evaluate the co-administration of Haduvio with pirfenidone or nintedanib in healthy adult subjects. Pirfenidone and nintedanib are prescribed as anti-fibrotic therapies in a significant portion of patients with IPF. The results of the study concluded coadministration of Haduvio with pirfenidone and nintedanib showed no clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic findings for nalbuphine ER or either of the antifibrotics when given in combination. No dose adjustments for any of the drugs will be required if Haduvio is administered concomitantly with these agents.

Respiratory Safety

We are also conducting a Phase 1 respiratory function and safety study, which we refer to as TIDAL, in the U.K. and U.S. and we have screened and enrolled patients. TIDAL is a multi-center, open-label, in-clinic, fixed-sequence placebo to nalbuphine ER dose escalation study assessing overnight respiratory function and safety in patients with IPF. We expect to enroll approximately ten patients who will be in-clinic for ten days. The goal of the study is to assess the safety and tolerability of Haduvio as well as the effect on respiratory function and safety in subjects with IPF based on assessment of end tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide by capnography (PetCO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2), and respiratory rate. The study is intended to better characterize the physiological effects of administering nalbuphine ER at the intended therapeutic doses on parameters of respiration important for patients with IPF. The safety review committee met to review data for the sentinel cohort of patients and concluded there were no safety signals and gave approval to complete enrollment. We expect to complete this study in mid-2026.

7

We also anticipate conducting additional standard pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and other studies as needed to support marketing applications for regulatory approval in the U.S. and Europe.

Competition

The biopharmaceutical industry is intensely competitive and is subject to rapid and significant change. While we believe that our technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. If we are able to successfully develop and commercialize Haduvio, it would compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Chronic Cough in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis and Non-IPF Interstitial Lung Diseases

If Haduvio is approved for the treatment of chronic cough in patients with IPF and non-IPF ILD, we expect that it may compete with product candidates that may be developed for the treatment of chronic cough in patients with IPF or ILD. Development of BI 1839100, a TRPA1 antagonist by Boehringer Ingelheim for the treatment of IPF-related chronic cough and progressive pulmonary fibrosis, was terminated in September 2025. It is possible that product candidates currently in development for the treatment of fibrosis in patients with IPF and ILD could, if approved, reduce the need for therapies to treat chronic cough in patients with IPF and non-IPF ILD. We expect that Haduvio might also compete with other product candidates currently in development, for the treatment of patients with RCC that might be used off-label to treat IPF-related chronic cough.

RCC

If Haduvio is approved for the treatment of patients with RCC, we expect that it may compete with product candidates in clinical development for the treatment of patients with RCC such as camlipixant, a P2X3 antagonist, which is being developed by GSK plc. Gefapixant, a P2X3 antagonist, which was developed by Merck & Co., Inc., or Merck, is approved for refractory or unexplained chronic cough in Japan, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the E.U. The application filed with the FDA was withdrawn and Merck indicated it does not plan to refile. Other product candidates that are currently in development for the treatment of patients with RCC include taplucainium (formerly NTX-1175), a charged sodium channel blocker, which is being developed by Nocion Therapeutics Inc.

We also expect that Haduvio would compete with a number of therapeutics that are not specifically approved to treat chronic cough including benzonatate, opioids, corticosteroids, proton-pump inhibitors, and neuromodulators.

Many of our competitors and potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining marketing approvals and commercializing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials.

We expect that Haduvio, if approved for marketing, will compete on the basis of, among other things, efficacy, safety, health-economic benefit, convenience of administration and delivery, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of adequate reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our 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 Haduvio. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for Haduvio, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

License Agreements

Exclusive License Agreement with Keenova Therapeutics plc

In May 2011, we entered into an agreement with Keenova, for an exclusive worldwide sublicensable license under certain patent rights and know-how controlled by Keenova to develop and commercialize products incorporating nalbuphine hydrochloride in any formulation, including an extended-release formulation such as Haduvio, in all fields and for any use.

Under the license agreement, we paid Keenova a non-creditable, non-refundable upfront license fee. We may also become obligated to make milestone payments to Keenova of $0.3 million, which would become due upon the successful completion of the first Phase 3 clinical trial of a licensed product candidate, and $0.8 million, which would become due upon the marketing approval of a licensed product in the U.S., and to pay royalties based on net sales of the licensed

8

products by us, our affiliates and sublicensees. In addition, we are obligated to pay Keenova a low-to-mid double-digit percentage of certain income we receive from sublicensees, based on the date of the definitive agreement under which the sublicense was granted.

Our royalty obligation with respect to each licensed product in each country commences upon the first commercial sale of the product in that country and extends until the later of the expiration, unenforceability or invalidation of the last valid claim of any licensed patent or application covering the licensed product in the country or the expiration of 10 years after the first commercial sale of the licensed product in the country, which period is referred to as the royalty term. Upon the expiration of the royalty term for a product in a country, we are thereafter obligated to pay a low single-digit know-how and trademark royalty.

Under the agreement, we have granted Keenova a non-exclusive, royalty-free (except for pass-through payments to third parties), sublicensable license under our relevant patent rights, to use any improvement we make to Endo’s controlled release technology, for any product other than the products under which we are licensed by Endo.

Both we and Keenova have the right to terminate the agreement if the other party materially breaches the agreement and fails to cure the breach within specified cure periods. Keenova also has the right to terminate in the event we undergo specified bankruptcy, insolvency or liquidation events. We have the right to terminate the agreement at our convenience at any time on 180 days’ notice to Keenova. Additionally, if we or any of our sublicensees challenge the validity or enforceability of any licensed patent rights covering a licensed product, and that challenge is not terminated within a specified period, the agreement will immediately terminate and all licenses granted under the agreement shall be revoked.

Upon termination of the agreement, we must transfer to Keenova all regulatory filings and approvals relating to the development, manufacture or commercialization of the licensed products and all trademarks, other than our corporate trademarks, then being used in connection with the licensed products. If the agreement is terminated under certain specified circumstances, we will be deemed to have granted Keenova a perpetual, royalty-free (except for pass-through payments to third parties), worldwide, exclusive, sublicensable license, under any improvements we made to the licensed know-how, and any related patent rights we have, to manufacture and commercialize the licensed products.

Manufacturing

We currently contract with third parties for the supply of nalbuphine hydrochloride drug substance and the manufacture of Haduvio tablets for clinical trials and intend to do so for clinical and commercial supply in the future. We do not own or operate facilities for the production of clinical or commercial quantities of drug substance or drug product. At present, we have no plans to initiate our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. Although we rely on contract manufacturers, we have personnel with experience to oversee our relationships with contract manufacturers.

We rely, and plan to continue to rely, on a single supplier, Par Health, which was spun off as an independent company after the merger between Mallinckrodt plc and Endo, Inc., for nalbuphine hydrochloride drug substance. We do not have agreements in place with Par Health that guarantee supply quantities or pricing. Any significant delay in acquisition, increase in cost or decrease in availability of nalbuphine hydrochloride drug substance could considerably delay the manufacture of Haduvio, which could adversely impact the timing of our current and planned clinical trials and potential regulatory approval and commercialization of Haduvio. Although we are evaluating alternate sources of supply that could satisfy our clinical and commercial requirements for nalbuphine drug substance, we have not qualified any alternate sources and cannot assure you that we would be able to establish relationships with any such sources in a timely fashion, on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Haduvio is manufactured from readily available starting materials using established, scalable processes that do not require any special equipment or technology. Nalbuphine hydrochloride drug substance is commercially available and manufactured at production scale. Haduvio tablets are currently manufactured at a scale adequate to support clinical trials and initial commercial supply. Further scale-up assessment is also being planned.

We believe that our current suppliers and manufacturers have the capacity to support commercial scale production of Haduvio, however we have no formal agreements with them to cover commercial production and we may seek to pursue supply or manufacturing arrangements with additional or alternative parties in the future. While we believe there are alternate sources of supply that can satisfy our clinical requirements and any future commercial requirements, replacing or adding a supplier or manufacturer at the present time could result in additional cost or delay.

Commercial Operations

We have retained worldwide commercial rights for Haduvio. If Haduvio were to receive marketing approval from the FDA for IPF-related chronic cough or non-IPF ILD-related chronic cough, we would plan to market and commercialize Haduvio in the U.S. with our own focused, specialty sales force and target pulmonologists who specialize in treating IPF and non-IPF ILD patients, as well as ILD centers of excellence, as applicable. If Haduvio were to receive marketing

9

approval from the FDA for RCC, we would plan to market and commercialize Haduvio in the U.S. with our own focused sales force and target pulmonologists and other specialists, such as allergists, who treat RCC patients who have failed other chronic cough therapies. We also expect to utilize a variety of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize Haduvio outside the U.S.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for Haduvio and our manufacturing and process discoveries and other know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

As of December 31, 2025, we owned six U.S. patents, 22 foreign patents and multiple pending U.S. and foreign patent applications that include claims relating to methods of use of Haduvio, including a U.S. patent covering the use of Haduvio for the treatment of IPF-related chronic cough. The issued patents expire between 2032 and 2041 and the patent applications, if issued as patents, would expire between 2032 and 2045. In February 2025, we received a notice of allowance for a U.S. patent application with claims covering the use of Haduvio for the treatment of chronic cough in IPF in patients with hepatic impairment. The patent issuing from this application will expire in 2042.

In addition, we are party to an exclusive license agreement with Keenova under which we have licensed patent rights and know-how to develop and commercialize products incorporating nalbuphine hydrochloride in any formulation, including Haduvio. As of December 31, 2025, the intellectual property in-licensed under this agreement included six U.S. patents and four foreign patents, which include granted European patent rights that have been validated in various European Union, or E.U., member states. The licensed patents from Keenova include claims relating to the formulation of Haduvio. These patents expire between 2026 and 2029.

In addition, we have in-licensed three issued U.S. patents, one issued European patent, one issued Japanese patent, and one issued Canadian patent. These patents relate to the use of nalbuphine in various movement disorders. The U.S. patents expire in 2032. The Japanese, European and Canadian patents expire in 2032.

We do not own or exclusively license any composition of matter patents for Haduvio.

The terms of individual patents depend upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the U.S., the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a nonprovisional patent application in the applicable country. In the U.S., a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date.

Provisions are available in the E.U. and certain other non-U.S. jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. The expiration dates referred to above are without regard to potential patent term extension or other market exclusivity that may be available to us. However, we cannot provide any assurances that any such patent term extension of a non-U.S. patent will be obtained and, if obtained, the duration of such extension. We also protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and other contractors. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, consultants, scientific advisors or other contractors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, alter our processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights that we may require to develop or commercialize Haduvio or any future product candidate may have a material adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the U.S. that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention.

Government Regulation and Product Approvals

Government authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local levels, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the E.U., extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, sales,

10

pricing, reimbursement, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of biopharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the U.S. and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and may have a significant impact on our business.

Approval and Regulation of Drugs in the U.S.

In the U.S., drug products are regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and applicable implementing regulations and guidance. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and for their regulatory approval, is typically referred to as a sponsor. The failure of a sponsor to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, including nonclinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or the post-approval process, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval and/or administrative or judicial sanctions.

A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug in the U.S. generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps before the FDA will consider approving the product candidate:

•
preclinical testing including laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies, which must be performed in accordance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice, or GLP, regulations and standards;

•
completion of the manufacture, under current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, conditions, of the drug substance and drug product that the sponsor intends to use in human clinical trials along with required analytical and stability testing;

•
design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

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

•
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for each proposed indication, in accordance with current good clinical practices, or cGCP;

•
preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA for a drug product which includes not only the results of the clinical trials, but also, detailed information on the chemistry, manufacturing and controls, or CMC, for the product candidate and proposed labelling for one or more proposed indication(s);

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

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities, including those of third parties, at which the product candidate or components thereof are manufactured to assess compliance with cGMP requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•
satisfactory completion of any FDA audits of the nonclinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with cGCPs and the integrity of clinical data in support of the NDA;

•
payment of user application and program fees pursuant to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA;

•
securing FDA approval of the NDA to allow marketing of the new drug product for a particular indication in the U.S.; and

•
compliance with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS and the potential requirement to conduct any post-approval studies required by the FDA.

Preclinical Studies

Before a sponsor begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, if applicable. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and long-term toxicity studies, may

11

continue after the IND is submitted. With passage of the FDA’s Modernization Act 2.0 in December 2022, Congress eliminated provisions in both the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act that required animal testing in support of an NDA. While animal testing may still be conducted, the FDA was authorized to rely on alternative nonclinical tests, including cell-based assays, microphysiological systems, or bioprinted or computer models. In April 2025, the FDA released a roadmap to replace animal testing in preclinical safety studies with scientifically validated new approach methodologies.

The IND and IRB Processes

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved NDA. In support of a request for an IND, sponsors must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research patients will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, or thereafter, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. The FDA may also place a hold or partial hold on a clinical study based on CMC issues involving the investigational product. In either case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin.

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

Once an IND application takes effect, the sponsor of the IND may amend the application as needed to ensure that the clinical investigations are conducted according to protocols included in the IND. The FDA has indicated that sponsors are expected to submit amendments for new protocols or changes to existing protocols before implementation of the respective changes. New studies may begin, however, when the sponsor has submitted the change to the FDA for its review and the new protocol or changes to the existing protocol have been approved by the IRB with the responsibility for review and approval of the studies. In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB, which must operate in compliance with FDA regulations, must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study patients. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

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

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new drug products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational drugs for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the drug under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application.

12

When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere with the initiation, conduct or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests, it must make that policy publicly available. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the investigational drug receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast-track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to human patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator in accordance with cGCP requirements which include, among other things, the requirement that all research patients provide their informed consent in writing before they participate in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written clinical trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may also be required after approval.

Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and pharmacodynamics in healthy humans or in patients. During Phase 1 clinical trials, information about the product candidate’s PK and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.

Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 clinical trials are well-controlled and closely monitored.

Phase 3 clinical trials proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 clinical trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a drug. Such Phase 3 clinical trials are referred to as “pivotal” trials.

A clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA. Generally, pivotal trials are Phase 3 trials, but they may be Phase 2 trials if the design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in an area of unmet medical need.

In September 2025, the FDA issued final guidance with updated recommendations for cGCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The final guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s recently updated E6(R3) final guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly

13

developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In addition, the FDA issued final guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials.

In October 2025, the FDA issued final guidance that focuses on patient-focused drug development. The guidance outlines how stakeholders, such as patients, caregivers, researchers and medical product developers, can submit patient experience data in support of the development and approval of drug products. To that end, the guidance provides an overview of clinical outcome assessments, or COAs, in clinical trials, and the role that COAs may play in in evaluating the clinical benefit of a medical product.

In February 2026, the Commissioner of the FDA and the Director of Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research published an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which they declared that, in most cases, the new default requirement for FDA approval of a new product will be one adequate and well-controlled pivotal clinical trial plus confirmatory evidence, rather than two pivotal clinical trials. In determining whether to rely on one trial, the FDA will focus on the single trial’s quality, including magnitude of effect, appropriateness of control arms, endpoint selection, statistical power, blinding, handling of missing data, biological plausibility and alignment with intermediate biomarkers. At this point, it is unclear how this new policy will be implemented by the FDA. Based on the guidance from the FDA at our End-of-Phase 2 meeting, we plan to conduct two pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials for IPF-related chronic cough but it is not clear how the FDA’s new policy will apply to any other indication for which we develop Haduvio and how, if at all, it will affect our clinical development programs.

In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such trials are typically referred to as post-approval or post-marketing clinical trials. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group and to further document a clinical benefit in the case of drugs approved under accelerated approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of FDA approval for products.

A development and safety update report, or DSUR, detailing the results of clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the occurrence of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

Finally, sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. The FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to the long delay of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, in issuing final implementing regulations. With those regulations now in place, the FDA has issued, as of January 31, 2026, eight notices of non-compliance, thereby signaling the government’s willingness to begin enforcing these requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Violations may also result in injunctions and/or criminal prosecution or disqualification from federal grants.

Clinical Studies Outside the United States in Support of FDA Approval

In connection with our clinical development program, we may conduct trials at sites outside the United States. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the studies must be conducted in accordance with cGCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. cGCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.

The acceptance by the FDA of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States in support of U.S. approval may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical

14

practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to cGCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or, if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with cGCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials are subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted.

Interactions with the FDA During the Clinical Development Program

Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, a sponsor is given the opportunity to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-NDA meetings as well as end of phase meetings such as an End-of-Phase 2 meeting, or EOP2 meeting. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product. A Type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues and should not require input from more than three disciplines or divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product.

At the conclusion of these meetings, the FDA will typically provide its responses to questions posed by the sponsor regarding the clinical development program. The FDA will not indicate whether an NDA will be approved, but it will provide guidance to the sponsor on various questions, including whether an application should be submitted in the first place on the basis of the studies and data proposed by the sponsor. The FDA may also generally express support for the sponsor’s approach in the clinical development program but indicate that questions concerning whether the data support approval will be subject to review by the agency following its acceptance for filing of the NDA. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure.

Pediatric Studies

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, an application or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests and other information required by regulation. The sponsor, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other and agree upon a final plan. The agreed plan, which may include a request for deferral or waiver of PREA requirements, is a requirement for submission of an NDA. The FDA or the sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

For investigational products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, the FDA must, upon the request of a sponsor, meet to discuss preparation of the initial pediatric study plan or to discuss deferral or waiver of pediatric assessments. In addition, the FDA will meet early in the development process to discuss pediatric study plans with sponsors, and the FDA must meet with sponsors by no later than the End-of-Phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than ninety days after the FDA’s receipt of the study plan.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, 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. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete. The FDA is required to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, and have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements generally do not apply to products with orphan designation, although FDA has taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA. The FDA also maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA.

15

Submission and Review of an NDA

In order to obtain approval to market a drug product in the U.S., a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides sufficient data establishing the safety and efficacy of the drug product for its intended indication. The application must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product candidate’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of the use of a product candidate, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, purity and potency of the drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA.

The NDA is a vehicle through which sponsors formally propose that the FDA approve a new product for marketing and sale in the U.S. for one or more indications. Every new drug product candidate must be the subject of an approved NDA before it may be commercialized in the U.S. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2026 is $4,682,003 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for federal fiscal year 2026 is $442,213. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as a waiver for certain small businesses.

Following submission of an NDA, the FDA conducts a preliminary review of the application within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept the application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the requested 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 the application to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, whether it has an acceptable purity profile and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Under that agreement, 90% of applications seeking approval of New Molecular Entities, or NMEs, are meant to be reviewed within 10 months from the date on which the FDA accepts the application for filing, and 90% of applications for NMEs that have been designated for “priority review” are meant to be reviewed within six months of the filing date.

The FDA seeks to meet these timelines for review of an application but its ability to do so may be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, the ability to hire and retain key personnel and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. For example, during the past decade, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, including the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities, including the review of NDAs.

In connection with its review of an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including component manufacturing, finished product manufacturing and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

Moreover, the FDA will review a sponsor’s financial relationship with the principal investigators who conducted the clinical trials in support of the NDA. That is because, under certain circumstances, principal investigators at a clinical trial site may also serve as scientific advisors or consultants to a sponsor and receive compensation in connection with such services. Depending on the level of that compensation and any other financial interest a principal investigator may have in a sponsor, the sponsor may be required to report these relationships to the FDA. The FDA will then evaluate that financial relationship and determine whether it creates a conflict of interest or otherwise affects the interpretation of the trial or the integrity of the data generated at the principal investigator’s clinical trial site. If so, the FDA may exclude data from the clinical trial site in connection with its determination of safety and efficacy of the investigational product.

Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCP and the integrity of the data submitted in support of the application. In 2022, Congress clarified FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and nonclinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process.

16

In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events and whether the product is an NME.

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

Expedited Review Programs

The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of applications in several ways. None of these expedited programs, however, change the standards for approval but each may help expedite the development or approval process governing product candidates.

Fast Track Designation. Candidate products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, this designation enables a company to petition the FDA to initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.

Breakthrough Therapy designation. To qualify for the Breakthrough Therapy program, product candidates must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence must indicate that such product candidates may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a Breakthrough Therapy product candidate receives intensive guidance on an efficient development program, involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review and rolling review.

Priority Review. A product candidate is eligible for Priority Review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, it would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention compared to marketed products. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. The FDA aims to complete its review of Priority Review applications within six months as opposed to 10 months for standard review.

Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation. With the passage of the Cures Act in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.

Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher Program. In June 2025, the FDA announced the creation of the “Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher, or CNPV, Program. Vouchers issued under this program can reportedly be redeemed by sponsors to shorten the review time of an NDA from approximately 10-12 months to 1-2 months. The FDA has indicated that the new CNPV process will convene experts from the FDA’s offices for a team-based review rather than using the standard review system. Clinical information will be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians and scientists who will pre-review the submitted information and convene for a 1-day meeting. Vouchers under this program will reportedly be given to companies aligned with U.S. national priorities.

Rare Disease Evidence Principles. In September 2025, the FDA introduced a framework intended to streamline the approval of new therapies for ultrarare diseases. The Rare Disease Evidence Principles, or RDEP, is intended to allow sponsors to rely on a single-arm trial in support of approval of biologics that treat rare diseases with very small patient populations and where the disease is linked to a known genetic defect and characterized by progressive functional

17

deterioration leading to disability or death in a short period of time. The targeted diseases should also lack adequate alternative therapies.

Accelerated approval. In addition to programs that allow for expedited review of applications, the FDA is authorized to approve new products through an accelerated approval pathway. Under this pathway, a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing studies or clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of all promotional materials.

In 2022, Congress directed the FDA to require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded and to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed. Moreover, the FDA was authorized to withdraw an accelerated approval if certain conditions are met, including where a required confirmatory study fails to verify and describe the predicted clinical benefit or where evidence demonstrates the product is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use. The FDA may also use such procedures to withdraw an accelerated approval if a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval study of the product with due diligence, including with respect to “conditions specified by the Secretary.” The new procedures include the provision of due notice and an explanation for a proposed withdrawal, and opportunities for a meeting with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, or the Commissioner, or the Commissioner’s designee and a written appeal, among other things.

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of an NDA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter, or CRL. To reach this determination, the FDA reviews an application to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and effective for its intended use. The FDA must determine that the investigational product is effective and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients. This assessment is informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks.

A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six month extension to respond. For those seeking to challenge FDA’s CRL decision, the agency has indicated that sponsors may request a formal hearing on the CRL or they may file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution. While CRLs were previously treated by the FDA as confidential and were only disclosed in action packages for approved products, the agency announced in September 2025 that it will now release CRLs promptly after they are issued to sponsors. Since that announcement, the FDA has posted a number of CRLs on its website.

An approval letter, on the other hand, authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific conditions. The FDA may limit the approved indications for use of the product. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after the initiation of commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, such as REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for health care professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

In the event that a sponsor wishes to make a change to a product that has been approved under an NDA, the sponsor must submit a supplemental application to the FDA. Such changes may include a revision of the labeling for the approved

18

product, the addition of a new indication, a change in the dosage, strength or formulation of the product, or a modification of the manner in which the drug is manufactured. Under the timelines established pursuant to PDUFA, the standard review time for a non-NME original NDA is generally 10 months from receipt of the application by the FDA.

Post-Approval Regulation

If regulatory approval for marketing of a product or a new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-approval regulatory requirements as well as any post-approval requirements that the FDA may have imposed as part of the approval process. The sponsor will be required to report, among other things, certain adverse reactions and manufacturing problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.

A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical 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, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

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

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

•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product.

It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in non-promotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the PIE Act explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products.

In addition, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining its policies governing the distribution of scientific information to healthcare providers about unapproved uses of approved products. The final guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading and scientifically sound and to include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the

19

unapproved use of the approved product. If a company engages in such communications consistent with the guidance’s recommendations, the FDA indicated that it will not treat such communications as evidence of unlawful promotion of a new intended use for the approved product.

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the HHS, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to a variety of federal and state laws. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or the PDMA, was the first federal law to set minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states and to regulate the distribution of drug samples. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. In November 2013, the federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, became effective in the U.S., mandating an industry-wide, electronic, interoperable system to trace prescription drugs through the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain with a ten-year phase-in process. Manufacturers were required by November 2023 to have such systems and processes. So as not to disrupt supply chains, the FDA has granted certain exemptions from enhanced drug distribution security requirements for eligible trading partners for particular periods of time. For wholesale drug distributors, the final DSCSA deadline was August 27, 2025, marking the date for mandatory transition to a fully electronic, interoperable system for tracking prescription drugs at the package level throughout the United States.

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

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

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

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs.

In order for an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the reference listed drug, or RLD, with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, the strength of the drug and the conditions of use of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.” Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of regulatory exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE. For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains no active

20

moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. This interpretation of the FDCA by the FDA was confirmed with enactment of the Ensuring Innovation Act in April 2021. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the sponsor may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of regulatory exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the sponsor and are essential to the approval of the application.

Hatch-Waxman Act Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the sponsor’s product or an approved method of using the product. Each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. The FDA’s regulations governing patient listings were largely codified into law with enactment of the Orange Book Modernization Act in January 2021. When an ANDA sponsor files its application with the FDA, the sponsor is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA sponsor is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) sponsor is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the sponsor is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA sponsor would.

Specifically, the sponsor must certify with respect to each patent that:

•
the required patent information has not been filed;

•
the listed patent has expired;

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

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

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

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

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

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the U.S. and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of regulatory exclusivity to the term of any existing patent or regulatory exclusivity for drug products. This six month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months.

21

This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application for a similar product.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half of the time between the effective date of the IND and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Health Care Law and Regulation

Health care providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, patient privacy laws and regulations and other health care laws and regulations that may constrain business and/or financial arrangements.

Restrictions under applicable federal and state health care laws and regulations, include the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, paying, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal health care program such as Medicare and Medicaid; the federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalties laws, which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false, fictitious or fraudulent or knowingly making, using or causing to made or used a false record or statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government; the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, which prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making, or offering or promising to make, improper payments to non-U.S. officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or otherwise seeking favorable treatment; and the federal transparency requirements known as the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, within the HHS, information related to payments and other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians, and their immediate family members.

Further, some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. Additionally, some state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives in the jurisdiction. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage and Health Care Reform

In the U.S. and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated health care costs. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the U.S. such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a

22

product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of health care costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and biologics and other medical products, government control and other changes to the health care system in the U.S.

In March 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for drug products under government health care programs. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. Indeed, under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to four percent.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an action challenging the constitutionality of the ACA after finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the action. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Pharmaceutical Price Reforms

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid.

In addition, the HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the U.S. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue the HHS. Several states have passed laws allowing for the importation of products from Canada. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian product importation. That state now has authority to import certain products from Canada for a period of two years once certain conditions are met. Florida will first need to submit a pre-import request for each product selected for importation, which must be approved by the FDA. The state will also need to relabel the products and perform quality testing of the products to meet FDA standards.

On May 21, 2025, the FDA announced that it would offer individual states the opportunity to submit a draft proposal for pre-review and meet with the agency to obtain initial feedback from FDA prior to formally submitting their Section 804 importation program (SIP) proposal. The intent of these meetings is to assist states in developing their proposals by further clarifying requirements, enhancing the quality of proposals submitted to the agency and ultimately shortening the review timeline. Further, the HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would also eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.

23

For example, on August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain single-source drug products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS was directed to negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least nine years. Drugs that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition were originally categorically excluded from price negotiation but, with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, on July 3, 2025, Congress extended this exemption to drugs with multiple orphan drug designations.

The IRA subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. In addition, the IRA established inflation rebate programs under Medicare Part B and Part D. These programs require manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare if they raise their prices for certain Part B and Part D drugs faster than the rate of inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year.

The first cycle of negotiations for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program commenced in the summer of 2023, with the negotiated prices for ten selected drug products becoming effective on January 1, 2026. The second cycle of negotiations with participating drug companies will occurred during 2025, and the negotiated prices for this second set of fifteen drugs will become effective on January 1, 2027. On January 27, 2026, CMS published the list of fifteen drugs selected for the third cycle of negotiations. These negotiated prices will become effective on January 1, 2028.

On June 6, 2023, Merck filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases or succeeded in getting claims dismissed for lack of standing or on the merits. For example, on May 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected AstraZeneca L.P.’s challenge to the Medicare price negotiation program, finding that the program did not violate the company’s due process rights under the Constitution. Litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Since adoption of the IRA, the Trump Administration has taken a number of actions to reduce the costs of pharmaceutical products. For example, on April 15, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order which directs HHS to take steps to reduce the prices of pharmaceutical products. Further, on May 12, 2025, President Trump issued an additional Executive Order calling on pharmaceutical manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the prices of medicines in the United States. The Order provides that if such actions do not lower the costs of pharmaceuticals, the Secretary of HHS would pursue other actions, including proposing a rulemaking that imposes most favored nation, or MFN, pricing in the United States. Thereafter, on July 31, 2025, the President issued letters to 17 pharmaceutical companies reiterating the requirements of the May 12, 2025, Executive Order and demanding that such companies extend MFN pricing to Medicaid patients. Virtually all of these pharmaceutical companies have entered into agreements with the administration to provide for lower prices on certain pharmaceuticals.

Federal and State Data Privacy and Security laws

There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities, in the United States and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the healthcare industry generally, under HIPAA, HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them.

Our clinical trials will be regulated by HIPAA’s Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal

24

penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

In 2018, California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020 and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents. Many of the CCPA’s requirements are similar to those found in the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt-out of “sales” of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023 and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention, and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities.

In addition to California, a number of other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data, which includes health data in some cases. Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2024 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2025 and beyond. Other states will be considering similar laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, the State of Washington passed the My Health My Data Act in 2023 which specifically regulated health information that is not otherwise regulated by the HIPAA rules, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data, and more states are considering such legislation in 2024. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are also increasingly using privacy-related statutes at both the state and federal level to bring lawsuits against companies for their data-related practices. In particular, there have been a significant number of cases filed against companies for their use of pixels and other web trackers. These cases often allege violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and other state laws regulating wiretapping, as well as the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

Review and Approval of Medicinal Products in the E.U.

In order to market any product outside of the U.S., a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, a sponsor will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. Specifically, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the E.U. generally follows the same lines as in the U.S. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application, or MAA and granting of a marketing authorization, or MA, by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the E.U.

Nonclinical Studies

Nonclinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical substances. Nonclinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice, or GLP, as set forth in E.U. Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products – e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, nonclinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP

25

principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for nonclinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical Trial Approval

On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or CTR, became effective in the E.U. and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the E.U. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the E.U., or E.U. Member State, will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the E.U. Member States and the public.

Beyond streamlining the process, the new regulation includes a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all E.U. Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted, which we refer to as the Member States concerned. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the Member State concerned. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the CTR.

The new regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the E.U. Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different E.U. Member States, the competent authorities in each of these E.U. Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. As of January 31, 2025, all clinical trials in the E.U. (including those which are ongoing) are subject to the CTR.

As in the U.S., clinical trial information must be posted in the E.U. at the EudraCT website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu.

PRIME Designation in the E.U.

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many 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 accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, or the Committee for Advanced Therapies, or CAT, is appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

Marketing Authorization

To obtain an MA for a product under E.U. regulatory systems, a sponsor must submit an MAA either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the E.U. Member States (either a decentralized procedure, national procedure or mutual recognition procedure). An MA may be granted only to a sponsor established in the E.U. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining an MA in the E.U., sponsors have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted (i) a product-specific waiver, (ii) a class waiver or (iii) a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA by the European Commission that is valid across the European Economic Area, or the EEA (i.e. the E.U., as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, including products for the treatment of cancer. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that

26

are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. The centralized procedure may also be used in certain other cases at the request of the sponsor. We anticipate that the centralized procedure will be mandatory for the product candidates we are developing.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. Under the centralized procedure in the E.U., the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the sponsor in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days but it is possible that the CHMP can revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. At the end of this period, the CHMP provides a scientific opinion on whether or not an MA should be granted in relation to a medicinal product. Within 15 calendar days of receipt of a final opinion from the CHMP, the European Commission must prepare a draft decision concerning an application for an MA. This draft decision must take the opinion and any relevant provisions of E.U. law into account. Before arriving at a final decision on an application for centralized authorization of a medicinal product the European Commission must consult the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee is composed of representatives of the E.U. Member States and chaired by a non-voting European Commission representative. The European Parliament also has a related “droit de regard”. The European Parliament’s role is to ensure that the European Commission has not exceeded its powers in deciding to grant or refuse to grant an MA.

Exceptional Circumstances

The European Commission may grant a so-called “marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances”. Such authorization is intended for products for which the sponsor can demonstrate that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use, because the indications for which the product in question is intended are encountered so rarely that the sponsor cannot reasonably be expected to provide comprehensive evidence, or in the present state of scientific knowledge, comprehensive information cannot be provided, or it would be contrary to generally accepted principles of medical ethics to collect such information. Consequently, an MA under exceptional circumstances may be granted subject to certain specific obligations, which may include the following:

•
the sponsor must complete an identified program of studies within a time period specified by the competent authority, the results of which form the basis of a reassessment of the benefit/risk profile;

•
the medicinal product in question may be supplied on medical prescription only and may in certain cases be administered only under strict medical supervision, possibly in a hospital and in the case of a radiopharmaceutical, by an authorized person; and

•
the package leaflet and any medical information must draw the attention of the medical practitioner to the fact that the particulars available concerning the medicinal product in question are as yet inadequate in certain specified respects.

An MA under exceptional circumstances is subject to annual review to reassess the risk-benefit balance in an annual reassessment procedure. Continuation of the authorization is linked to the annual reassessment and a negative assessment could potentially result in the MA being suspended or revoked. The renewal of an MA of a medicinal product under exceptional circumstances, however, follows the same rules as a “normal” MA. Thus, an MA under exceptional circumstances is granted for an initial five years, after which the authorization will become valid indefinitely, unless the EMA decides that safety grounds merit one additional five-year renewal.

Conditional Marketing Authorization

The European Commission may also grant a so-called “conditional marketing authorization” prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full MA. Such conditional marketing authorizations may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if (i) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (ii) it is likely that the sponsor will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (iii) the product fulfills an unmet medical need and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies and the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized marketing authorization procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each E.U. 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

27

authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference E.U. 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 E.U. Member States who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned E.U. 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 European Commission, whose decision is binding on all E.U. Member States.

The mutual recognition procedure similarly is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the E.U. Member States of the MA of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other E.U. Member States. The holder of a national MA may submit an application to the competent authority of an E.U. Member State requesting that this authority recognize the MA delivered by the competent authority of another E.U. Member State.

Regulatory Data Protection in the E.U.

In the E.U., innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 repeats this entitlement for medicinal products authorized in accordance the centralized authorization procedure. Data exclusivity prevents sponsors for authorization of generics of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abridged) application for a period of eight years. During an additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic MAA can be submitted and authorized, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be placed on the E.U. market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall 10-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 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. Even if a compound is considered to be an NCE so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

In November 2020, the European Commission launched a review of the E.U.’s pharmaceutical legislation, including its provisions governing regulatory exclusivity. The EC’s proposal for revision of several legislative measures was published in April 2023 and includes, among other things, provisions that would potentially reduce the duration of regulatory exclusivity protection. On December 11. 2025, the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional political agreement on the legislation, which is expected to be adopted by mid-2026. Key changes include updating regulatory exclusivity to a new system with eight years of data exclusivity and a reduced market exclusivity period to one year, which can be extended if specific conditions are fulfilled up to a maximum of eleven years. This measure, and others, are expected to be adopted by mid-2026 and, following a transition period of 24 months, will likely take effect in mid-2028.

Patent Term Extensions in the E.U. and Other Jurisdictions

The E.U. also provides for patent term extension through Supplementary Protection Certificates, or SPCs. The rules and requirements for obtaining a SPC are similar to those in the U.S. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of marketing exclusivity for a drug. These periods can be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained, which is described in detail below. Although SPCs are available throughout the E.U., sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the E.U.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

An MA has an initial validity for five years in principle. 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 E.U. Member State. To this end, the MA holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the MA was granted, at least six months before the MA ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the E.U. Member States may decide, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five-year period of 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 E.U. market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing E.U. Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Prior to obtaining an MA in the E.U., sponsors must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved PIP covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all MA procedures are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, the so-called Pediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine for children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine for children is not

28

needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population. Before an MAA can be filed, or an existing MA can be amended, the EMA must determine that a company actually complied with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP. If a sponsor obtains an MA in all E.U. Member States, or an MA granted in the Centralized Procedure by the European Commission, and the study results for the pediatric population are included in the product information, even when negative, the medicine is then eligible for an additional six-month period of qualifying patent protection through extension of the term of the Supplementary Protection Certificate.

Regulatory Requirements after a Marketing Authorization has been Obtained

In case an authorization for a medicinal product in the E.U. is obtained, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include:

•
Compliance with the E.U.’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules must be ensured. These rules can impose post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations.

•
The manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the applicable E.U. laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2003/94/EC, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice, or E.U. cGMP. These requirements include compliance with E.U. cGMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the E.U. with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the E.U.

•
The marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the E.U. notably under Directive 2001/83EC, as amended, and E.U. Member State laws. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is prohibited across the E.U.

Review and Approval of Medical Products in the U.K.

The U.K.’s withdrawal from the E.U., commonly referred to as Brexit, took place on January 31, 2020. The E.U. and the U.K. reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which entered into force on May 1, 2021. As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. The MHRA relies on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or the HMR, as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of E.U. law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the U.K.’s withdrawal from the E.U. On April 28, 2025, the Parliament adopted amendments to improve and strengthen the clinical trials regulatory regime in the United Kingdom. These revisions will take effect on April 28, 2026, and were needed since the then existing requirements in the United Kingdom were based upon the now-repealed Clinical Trials Directive, which has been replaced by the CTR. Since the U.K. left the E.U. prior to the date on which the E.U. CTR took effect, the legal framework in the U.K. did not benefit from the same revisions as occurred at the E.U. level.

As of January 1, 2024, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, applies which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the U.K. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EEA member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). The RR assessment must have undergone a full and standalone review. RR assessments based on reliance or recognition cannot be used to support an IRP application. A CHMP positive opinion or an MRDC positive end of procedure outcome is an RR authorization for the purposes of IRP.

General Data Protection Regulation

The collection, use, disclosure, transfer or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the E.U., including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the E.U., including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or four percent of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data patients and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.

29

In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the CJEU, invalidated the E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the United States. Following this decision, the European Commission adopted an adequacy decision for the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in July 2023. This adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify under the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the European Union to the United States. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, and there is currently one pending litigation against the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), C-703/25 P – Latombe v Commission. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the so-called standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms.

In October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield. The European Commission initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in December 2022, and has now adopted an adequacy decision to permit data transfers from the E.U. to the U.S. going forward. This development permits data transfers under the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and more broadly has made international data transfers more straightforward, but these provisions are being challenged in court. The continuing uncertainty around this issue may further impact our business operations in the E.U. We may, however, incur liabilities, expenses, costs, and other operational losses under the GDPR and the laws of applicable E.U. Member States and the U.K. privacy laws in connection with any measures we take to comply with them.

Following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the E.U., the U.K. Data Protection Act applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the United Kingdom and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. The United Kingdom government has determined that it considers all EU member states and European Economic Area, or EEA, member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the United Kingdom to the E.U./EEA remain unaffected. Further, the European Commission decided in June 2021 that the level of data protection in the United Kingdom is “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the United Kingdom. On December 19, 2025, the European Commission renewed this decision until December 27, 2031. The United Kingdom and the U.S. have also agreed to a U.S.- U.K. “Data Bridge,” which functions similarly to the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and provides an additional legal mechanism for companies to transfer personal data from the United Kingdom to the United States.

Beyond the GDPR, there are privacy and data security laws in a growing number of countries around the world. While many loosely follow the GDPR as a model, other laws contain different or conflicting provisions. These laws may impact our ability to conduct our business activities, including both our clinical trials and any eventual sale and distribution of commercial products.

Pricing Decisions for Approved Products

In the E.U., pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the E.U. provides options for the E.U. Member States to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. E.U. Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other E.U. Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the E.U. have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage health care expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the E.U. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly with respect to prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various E.U. Member States, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced E.U. Member States, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2025, we had 34 employees, with 21 employees engaged in research and development and the remaining 13 engaged in general management and administration, including finance and commercial. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We believe that we maintain good relations with our employees.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and future employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and

30

motivate employees, selected consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards in ways that are aligned with the interests of our stockholders. We value our employees and regularly benchmark total rewards we provide, such as short- and long-term compensation, 401(k) contributions, health, welfare and quality of life benefits, paid time off and personal leave, against our industry peers to ensure we remain competitive and attractive to potential new hires.

Our Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on March 17, 2011 under the name Trevi Therapeutics, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 195 Church Street, 16th Floor, New Haven, Connecticut 06510, and our telephone number is (203) 304-2499. Our website address is www.trevitherapeutics.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have included our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K solely as an inactive textual reference.