NASDAQ: ZVRA

In May 2022, we purchased all of the assets and operations of Orphazyme A/S (“Orphazyme”) related to arimoclomol. On September 20, 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for MIPLYFFA, for use in combination with miglustat for the treatment of neurological manifestations of NPC in adult and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older, and MIPLYFFA became commercially available for dispense in the United States in November 2024. In connection with this approval, we received a transferable rare pediatric disease priority review voucher (“PRV”). On April 1, 2025, we consummated the sale of the PRV, resulting in net proceeds of $148.3 million to us. MIPLYFFA has also been granted orphan medicinal product designation for the treatment of NPC by the European Commission. We are pursuing regulatory approval in E.U. and filed a Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”) with the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) in July 2025; the application is currently under review.

On November 17, 2023, we completed the acquisition of Acer Therapeutics, Inc. (“Acer”), pursuant to which Acer became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zevra. This included the acquisition of OLPRUVA (sodium phenylbutyrate) for oral suspension, which is commercially available in the U.S., for the treatment of certain urea cycle disorders (“UCDs”). In addition, we acquired Acer's pipeline of investigational product candidates, including celiprolol for the treatment of Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (VEDS) in patients with a confirmed type III collagen (COL3A1) mutation. We are actively enrolling a Phase 3 clinical trial, known as DiSCOVER, to determine whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients with VEDS.

Our Product Candidates and Approved Products

We have built a diverse portfolio of products and product candidates through a combination of internal development and strategic investments through acquisition. For example, we employed our proprietary Ligand Activated Technology (LAT) platform to develop approved product AZSTARYS. Through our business development efforts, we have added commercial products (MIPLYFFA and OLPRUVA), and a clinical development candidate (celiprolol).

7

Table of Contents

Current commercial products and active development assets are summarized in the table below:

Active Zevra Commercial and Active Development Assets

Parent Drug IndicationProduct / Candidate
Status and IP

Arimoclomol
Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC)
MIPLYFFA
FDA Approval: Sep. 20, 2024; Orphan Drug Exclusivity (“ODE”) through 2031

Expanded Access Program (“EAP”)

Marketing Authorisation Application (“MAA”) under review by EMA, Submitted July 28, 2025

Sodium phenylbutyrate
Urea Cycle Disorders (UCD)
OLPRUVA
FDA Approval: Dec. 22, 2022; IP through 2036

Celiprolol
Vascular Ehlers Danlos Syndrome (VEDS)
Celiprolol
Clinical - Phase 3 trial ongoing; IP potential through 2038

Serdexmethylphenidate
Idiopathic Hypersomnia (IH)
KP1077IH
Clinical - Phase 3 trial ready; IP potential through 2038

SerdexmethylphenidateNarcolepsyKP1077N
Clinical - Phase 3 trial potential; IP potential through 2038

Serdexmethylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate

Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
AZSTARYS
FDA Approved and Partnered - Receiving royalties and milestones on net sales; IP through 2037

MIPLYFFA

NPC is an ultra-rare and progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by an inability of the body to transport cholesterol and lipids inside of cells. Symptoms of NPC include a progressive impairment of mobility, cognition, speech, and swallowing, often culminating in premature death. The incidence of NPC is estimated to be one in 100,000 to 130,000 live births. We estimate that there are approximately 2,000 individuals with NPC in the United States and Europe combined, of which approximately 900 are in the United States and 1,100 are in Europe, where there is a mature market with an approved treatment available for NPC. Of this estimated population, approximately 300 to 350 people have been diagnosed in the United States. NPC is clinically heterogenous, with significant variability in symptom presentation and rate of progression. Although it has traditionally been considered a pediatric disease due to its genetic origins, nearly half of the people treated with MIPLYFFA are adults. Low diagnostic rates may affect the number of potential patients, and we believe that the availability of treatment options in the United States could increase awareness of the disease and assist in more accurately identifying patients.

On September 20, 2024, the FDA approved the NDA for MIPLYFFA, an orally-delivered treatment, for NPC. MIPLYFFA, the first FDA-approved treatment for NPC, is indicated for use in combination with miglustat for the treatment of neurological manifestations of NPC in adult and pediatric patients two years of age and older. In addition, we received a transferable rare pediatric disease PRV in conjunction with the approval. On April 1, 2025, we completed the sale of the PRV and received net proceeds of $148.3 million.

Effective therapies to treat NPC are desperately needed, and, for this reason, MIPLYFFA is currently being made available to NPC patients in France, Germany, and other EU member states, along with select territories outside of Europe under our global EAP. MIPLYFFA has also been granted orphan medicinal product designation for the treatment of NPC by the European Commission. In July 2025, we filed an MAA, which is under review by the EMA.

As of December 31, 2025, there were a total of 161 enrollments to receive MIPLYFFA. For MIPLYFFA, an enrollment is a prescription submitted to our specialty pharmacy, initiating the benefits investigation process to determine reimbursement and can lead to a 30-day paid dispense of MIPLYFFA. Our commercial plans focus on raising awareness among people who are living with NPC that are diagnosed and untreated, or undiagnosed.

To commercialize MIPLYFFA in the United States, we have built, or have arrangements with third parties to perform, marketing, sales, medical affairs, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities. Zevra holds global rights to develop and commercialize MIPLYFFA.

8

Table of Contents

MIPLYFFA summary:

•Demonstrated halting of disease progression. MIPLYFFA in combination with miglustat demonstrated a clinically significant improvement compared to placebo as early as 12 weeks and a halting of progression of the disease through 12 months of treatment. Data from the 48-month Open Label Extension study confirms the effectiveness of MIPLYFFA in halting disease progression over multiple years.

•Ease of flexible administration as an oral treatment. MIPLYFFA is administered as an oral capsule that can be swallowed whole, opened and contents mixed with foods or liquids, or delivered through a feeding tube.

•Extensive clinical experience with favorable safety data. Over 600 patients have been treated with arimoclomol across various clinical trials and indications as well as through our global EAP, with no safety findings of concern found. Further, in a pediatric sub-study of patients aged 6–24 months, arimoclomol was well tolerated following at least 12 months of treatment with no new safety concerns observed.

•Advantageous regulatory designations. MIPLYFFA has been granted orphan medicinal product designation for the treatment of NPC by the European Commission.

OLPRUVA

UCDs are a group of rare genetic disorders that can cause harmful ammonia to build up in the blood, potentially resulting in brain damage and neurocognitive impairments, if ammonia levels are not controlled. Any increase in ammonia over time is serious. Therefore, it is important to adhere to any dietary protein restrictions and have alternative medication options to help control ammonia levels. Approximately 1 in 100,000 people have UCD, and there are an estimated 800 patients who are actively treated with nitrogen scavenging therapy in the United States While there are therapies currently approved for the treatment of UCDs, there remain unmet needs for this community of patients. We believe that OLPRUVA offers benefits over other UCD treatments by eliminating issues with palatability, offering improved portability with its single-dose envelopes, and being provided in a dosage personalized to the patient based on weight.

OLPRUVA (sodium phenylbutyrate) for oral suspension is approved in the United States as adjunctive therapy to standard of care, which includes dietary management, for the chronic management of UCDs involving deficiencies of carbamylphosphate synthetase (CPS), ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC), or argininosuccinic acid synthetase (AS). OLPRUVA for oral suspension is a proprietary and novel formulation of sodium phenylbutyrate powder, packaged in pre-measured single-dose envelopes, that has shown bioequivalence to existing sodium phenylbutyrate powder but with a pH-sensitive polymer coating that is designed to minimize dissolution of the coating for up to five minutes after preparation to help minimize the unpleasant taste of the sodium phenylbutyrate powder.

In the fourth quarter of 2023, we began generating revenue from the sale of OLPRUVA in the United States. Zevra has a partnership with Relief Therapeutics SA (“Relief”), which has rights to commercialize OLPRUVA in various European countries, if approved. For the year ended December 31, 2025, we had $0.8 million in revenue from sales of OLPRUVA. We have made the decision to scale back our sales and marketing efforts for OLPRUVA as we evaluate the path forward and weigh strategic alternatives.

OLPRUVA summary:

•OLPRUVA is available in the U.S for the treatment of certain types of UCDs. OLPRUVA is an adjunctive therapy for the chronic management of adults and children weighing 20kg or greater with UCD from deficiencies of CPS, OTC, or AS.

•OLPRUVA is differentiated from currently available forms of phenylbutyrate. OLPRUVA is formulated to improve palatability while providing patients with a portable and discrete pre-measured dose.

•Currently evaluating strategic alternatives. We have had limited success in commercializing OLPRUVA in the United States, and we are currently evaluating the path forward and weighing strategic alternatives.

9

Table of Contents

Celiprolol

Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) is a rare inherited disorder caused by mutations in the genes responsible for the structure, production, or processing of collagen, an important component of the connective tissues in the human body, or proteins that interact with collagen. VEDS is the most severe of the 13 types of EDS and causes abnormal fragility in large to medium sized arteries and hollow organs, such as the uterus and colon. This fragility can result in aneurysms, abnormal connections between blood vessels known as arteriovenous fistulas, arterial dissections, and spontaneous vascular and organ ruptures, all of which can be potentially life-threatening. The incidence of VEDS is estimated to be one in 50,000 to 200,000 people. There are approximately 7,500 patients in the United States.

We are advancing celiprolol as an investigational product candidate for the treatment of VEDS in patients with a confirmed type III collagen (COL3A1) mutation. Celiprolol is a selective adrenoceptor modulator (“SAM”) that we believe would qualify as a new chemical entity (“NCE”) if approved in the United States. Celiprolol is currently approved in certain EU states for the treatment of hypertension and angina.

Currently, there are no approved therapies anywhere in the world for VEDS. However, celiprolol, prescribed off label, has become the standard of care therapy for VEDS in some European countries. Medical intervention for VEDS focuses on surgery, symptomatic treatment, genetic counseling, and prophylactic measures, such as avoiding intense physical activity, scuba diving, and violent sports. Therefore, patients must adopt a “watch and wait” approach following any confirmed diagnosis. Unfortunately, many of these arterial events have high mortality associated with them; thus, a pharmacologic intervention that reduces the rate of events would be clinically meaningful.

Celiprolol received orphan drug designation from the FDA for the treatment of VEDS in 2015. In October 2018, a new celiprolol NDA was submitted to the FDA by Acer based on data obtained from the BBEST trial and was subsequently accepted by the FDA in October 2018 with priority review status. Following FDA review, Acer received a complete response letter (“CRL”) from the FDA stating that it will be necessary to conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial to determine whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients with VEDS. Subsequently, Acer appealed the FDA decision. While the FDA denied the appeal, it described possible paths forward toward approval. In a May 2021 Type B meeting with the FDA, Acer discussed the conduct of a U.S.-based prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, decentralized clinical trial in patients with COL3A1 positive VEDS and sought the FDA’s opinion on various proposed design features of the study.

Based on the FDA's feedback during the Type B meeting, Acer adopted a decentralized (virtual) event-based clinical trial design and use of an independent centralized adjudication committee with a primary endpoint based on clinical events associated with disease outcome. In April 2022, the FDA granted celiprolol Breakthrough Therapy designation in the United States for the treatment of patients with COL3A1-positive VEDS.

In July 2022, Acer initiated enrollment in a Phase 3 long-term event-driven clinical trial designed based on the discussions from the May 2021 Type B meeting with the FDA, also known as the DiSCOVER trial. The DiSCOVER trial intends to enroll 150 VEDS patients, with 100 patients receiving celiprolol and 50 patients receiving placebo. Recruitment in the Phase-3 trial was restarted mid-2024 and the trial has 52 enrolled participants as of December 31, 2025. We believe that celiprolol could address significant unmet needs, as there are currently no approved treatments for VEDS in the U.S. We have implemented a broad recruitment drive focusing on collaborating with medical clinics where most patients are being managed. In parallel, we are engaging with the FDA to discuss regulatory options to accelerate the development program.

Celiprolol summary:

•Currently, no approved treatments for VEDS in the United States. There are currently no approved treatments for VEDS in the United States, and we believe that celiprolol, if approved, could be a significant innovation in the treatment of VEDS where current treatment options are focused primarily on surgical intervention.

•Unique pharmacological profile. Mechanism of action in VEDS patients is thought to be through vascular dilatation and smooth muscle relaxation, the effect of which is to reduce the mechanical stress on collagen fibers in the arterial wall, potentially resulting in less incidence of vascular and hollow organ ruptures.

•Evidence of efficacy in Europe and extensive clinical experience from multiple trials. Celiprolol has become the primary treatment for VEDS patients in several European countries. BBEST Clinical Trial data showed 76% reduction in risk of arterial events observed in COLA3A1+ subpopulation, with additional data from a long-term observational study in France.

•Regulatory designations. Celiprolol for VEDS has been granted Orphan Drug designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation and, we believe, would be deemed an NCE in the United States if approved before any other celiprolol product.

10

Table of Contents

•Solid patent protection through 2038. Celiprolol is generally protected by U.S. patents that will expire, after utilizing all appropriate patent term adjustments but excluding possible term extensions, in 2038.

KP1077

Idiopathic hypersomnia (“IH”) is a rare neurological sleep disorder affecting approximately 37,000 patients in the United States. The cardinal feature of IH is excessive daytime sleepiness (“EDS”), characterized by daytime lapses into sleep, or an irrepressible need to sleep that persists even with adequate or prolonged nighttime sleep. Additionally, those with IH have extreme difficulty waking, otherwise known as “sleep inertia,” suffer from severe and debilitating brain fog, and may fall asleep unintentionally or at inappropriate times, also known as narcolepsy. These symptoms often further lead to reported memory problems, difficulty maintaining focus, and depression.

Narcolepsy is a rare, chronic, debilitating neurologic disorder of sleep-wake state instability that impacts up to 200,000 Americans and is primarily characterized by EDS and cataplexy (sudden loss of muscle tone while a person is awake) along with other manifestations of rapid eye movement and sleep dysregulation, which intrude into wakefulness. In most patients, narcolepsy is caused by the loss of hypocretin, a neuropeptide in the brain that supports sleep-wake state stability. Typical symptom onset occurs in adolescence or young adulthood, but it can take up to a decade to be properly diagnosed. Although there are several approved medications for narcolepsy, we believe a treatment option based on serdexmethylphenidate (“SDX”), our proprietary prodrug of d-methylphenidate (“d-MPH”), which has previously been classified as a Schedule IV controlled substance, may be beneficial.

KP1077, which utilizes SDX, our prodrug of d-MPH, as its active pharmaceutical ingredient, is being developed and evaluated for the treatment of IH and narcolepsy.

In December 2022, we announced the initiation of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized-withdrawal, dose-optimizing, multicenter Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of KP1077 for the treatment of IH. The trial concluded in March 2024 and provided meaningful information of the optimal dose and dosing regimen to inform Phase 3 trial design.

Clinically meaningful improvements were observed across all endpoints studied. The exploratory endpoints of sleep inertia and brain fog performed in-line with expectations and were stable when compared across a variety of other endpoints. Symptom improvements in patients receiving KP1077 were similar after both once-per-day and twice-per-day dosing.

KP1077 summary:

•No drug-to-drug interactions observed to date. We have not observed drug-to-drug interactions in clinical drug-drug interaction studies.

•Possible reduction of abuse potential as a Schedule IV controlled substance. All other methylphenidate-based products have been designated as Schedule II controlled substances, which indicates stricter control over the prescribing and use of such products. KP1077's sole active pharmaceutical ingredient is SDX, which has been designated a Schedule IV controlled substance.

•No currently approved generic equivalent product. KP1077 contains SDX, our proprietary prodrug of d-methylphenidate, also known as the new chemical name, serdexmethylphenidate, by the U.S. Adopted Names Council of the American Medical Association, which means that there may be no generic equivalent product for KP1077 in most states, making drug-equivalent substitution potentially difficult at the pharmacy.

•Orphan drug designation. Because the size of the IH patient population is small, the FDA has granted KP1077 orphan drug designation for the treatment of IH. We believe KP1077 may potentially be eligible for fast-track and breakthrough therapy designation, which may provide various regulatory benefits for the development program.

AZSTARYS (partnered product)

AZSTARYS contains d-MPH and our prodrug of d-MPH, SDX. On March 2, 2021, the FDA approved AZSTARYS as a once-daily treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in patients age six years and older. AZSTARYS is currently being marketed in the United States under our September 2019 collaboration and license agreement (the “AZSTARYS License Agreement”) with Commave. Under the AZSTARYS License Agreement, we granted Commave an exclusive, worldwide license, to develop, manufacture, and commercialize AZSTARYS and any of our product candidates containing SDX and used to treat ADHD or any other CNS disease.

11

Table of Contents

Commave has tasked its affiliate, Corium, Inc. (“Corium”), to lead all commercialization activities for AZSTARYS in the United States. Corium commercially launched AZSTARYS in the United States during the third quarter of 2021. In December 2021, Commave entered into a sublicense of commercialization rights for AZSTARYS in greater China to Shanghai Ark Biopharmaceutical Ltd.

Pursuant to the AZSTARYS License Agreement, Commave agreed to pay up to $63.0 million in milestone payments upon the occurrence of specified regulatory milestones related to AZSTARYS, including FDA approval and specified conditions with respect to the final approval label. In addition, Corium agreed to make additional payments upon the achievement of specified U.S. sales milestones of up to $420.0 million in the aggregate. Further, Commave will pay us quarterly, tiered royalty payments based on a percentage of net sales on a product-by-product basis. Corium also agreed to be responsible for and reimburse us for all of development, commercialization and regulatory expenses for any products or product candidates containing SDX, subject to certain limitations as set forth in the AZSTARYS License Agreement, including consultation fees to be paid to us for services provided to Corium in performing such activities.

In April 2021, we entered into the AZSTARYS Amendment (“AZSTARYS Amendment”), pursuant to which we and Commave agreed to modify the compensation terms of the AZSTARYS License Agreement. Commave paid us $10.0 million in connection with the execution of the AZSTARYS Amendment following the FDA approval of AZSTARYS in the United States. Corium also paid us $10.0 million following the SDX scheduling determination by the DEA, which occurred on May 7, 2021. In addition, the AZSTARYS Amendment increased the total remaining future regulatory and sales milestone payments related to AZSTARYS up to an aggregate of $590.0 million. The AZSTARYS License Agreement will continue on a product-by-product basis (i) until expiration of the royalty term for the applicable product candidate in the United States and (ii) perpetually for all other countries.

In May 2021, we announced that SDX, our proprietary prodrug of d-MPH and the primary active pharmaceutical ingredient in AZSTARYS, was classified as a Schedule IV controlled substance by the DEA. AZSTARYS is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance, as its formulation includes a 70:30 mixture of SDX (Schedule IV) and d-MPH (Schedule II), respectively.

Our Intellectual Property

Our intellectual property (“IP”) strategy includes seeking composition-of-matter patents, among other patents, for compounds and product candidates while also protecting, where appropriate as trade secrets, our proprietary technologies. In utilizing these technologies, the resulting compounds may potentially constitute a new molecule and thus may be eligible for composition-of-matter patent protection, among other patent protections, in the United States and abroad. Beyond our internally-generated IP, we have also acquired extensive IP portfolios through our business development efforts which support the products and product candidates that we are seeking to develop and/or commercialize.

In addition to the execution of our IP strategy, we also depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. We also rely on trade secret protection, assignments and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests.

As of December 31, 2025, we have been granted and maintain about 87 active patents within the United States, and about an additional 497 active foreign patents covering our selected prodrugs and product candidates. The terms of the issued U.S. patents extend to various dates ranging, for example, between at least 2029 and 2042. The term of our overall domestic and foreign patent portfolio related to our selected prodrugs and product candidates, including patent term adjustments but excluding possible patent term extensions, extend to various dates ranging, for example, between 2029 and 2044, if pending patent applications in each of our patent families are issued as patents. As of December 31, 2025, we had about 51 pending patent applications under active prosecution in the United States, and about an additional 250 pending foreign patent applications potentially covering our selected prodrugs and product candidates. Our issued and granted patents provide protection in jurisdictions that include the United States, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, European countries, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, and Vietnam.

MIPLYFFA (arimoclomol)

Pursuant to our acquisition of the Orphazyme assets, we have received method of use and method of treatment patents, and have filed related patent applications, related to the arimoclomol families in various jurisdictions, including the United States, European countries, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Canada, China, Brazil, Russia and Turkey, with anticipated patent expiration dates of 2029, excluding any potential patent term adjustments or extensions. We have filed and continue to file additional patent applications related to the arimoclomol families, including next generation of arimoclomol prodrug conjugate compounds which would have, if granted, an anticipated patent expiration date of about 2044, excluding any potential patent term adjustments or extensions. As of December 31, 2025, the MIPLYFFA related family included 13 granted U.S. patents and 38 active foreign patents, with an additional 11 pending U.S. patent applications and 73 foreign patent applications.

12

Table of Contents

OLPRUVA (sodium phenylbutyrate)

We acquired the IP portfolio supporting OLPRUVA as part of the Merger with Acer. We have both U.S. and foreign patents with claims related to OLPRUVA. Our U.S. patents are directed to pharmaceutical compositions, including OLPRUVA's polymer coated, multi-particulate dosage formulation for oral administration and covers certain methods of use claims related to OLPRUVA. Additionally, we have patents in Europe, Israel, and Mexico related to pharmaceutical compositions, including OLPRUVA's polymer coated, multi-particulate dosage formulation for oral administration. These patents expire in 2036.

Furthermore, we have exclusive rights to certain patents and other intellectual property from Baylor College of Medicine (“BCM”) for the use of sodium phenylbutyrate (NaPB) for the treatment of inborn errors of BCAA metabolism, including Maple Syrup Urine Diease (“MSUD”), with the latest patent expiring in 2032. Additionally, we have a combination therapeutic product composed of sodium phenylbutyrate or glycerol phenylbutyrate and sodium benzoate, which was exclusively licensed to Acer from BCM, which has an expiration date in June 2038. We made filings in the geographic regions that represent the largest incidence and prevalence of MSUD, including the United States, selected countries in Europe (including Turkey), and Brazil. BCM has received three patents in the United States and one in the EU with respect to OLPRUVA, each of which is exclusively licensed to us pursuant to our agreement with BCM.

Celiprolol

We intend to protect our commercial rights for celiprolol in the United States via multiple pathways. We believe celiprolol will be eligible for NCE exclusivity which provides upon approval as an NCE five years of marketing exclusivity, during which time the FDA will not approve another drug with the same active ingredient, regardless of the indication for use, in the United States. In January 2015, the FDA granted celiprolol Orphan Drug designation, which provides seven years of marketing exclusivity for a drug intended to treat a rare condition, if approved. During the Orphan Drug exclusivity period, the FDA cannot approve the same drug for the same indication, unless it demonstrates clinical superiority. Orphan Drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving the same drug for a different indication, or a different drug for the same indication. NCE exclusivity and Orphan Drug exclusivity periods run concurrently. Furthermore, celiprolol may qualify for an additional six months of pediatric exclusivity in the United States, which requires the submission of one or more studies in pediatric subjects that meet requirements to be specified by the FDA in a written request for pediatric studies. Pediatric exclusivity can be obtained either before or after NDA approval. Pediatric exclusivity is attached to the end of an existing exclusivity and runs consecutively. We may also consider making modifications to the formulation in order to improve the product profile and to seek additional intellectual property. While unapproved drugs may be imported into the United States under specified circumstances, such as for use in clinical studies under a valid and effective investigational new drug (“IND”) or for further manufacture into an IND drug or an approved drug, we intend to aggressively assert our rights, via regulatory and legal means, to limit the importation of non-FDA approved versions of celiprolol.

We have exclusively licensed from Assistance Publique—Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) a now-issued U.S. patent (US 11,523,997) titled “Method of Providing Celiprolol Therapy to a Patient,” with an expiration date in November 2038, excluding any potential patent term extension, which covers certain methods for treating VEDS with celiprolol. There is also one granted patent in Mexico, and further pending applications in various jurisdictions, including the United States, Mexico, Canada, and Brazil.

AZSTARYS and Serdexmethylphenidate (SDX)

We have received composition-of-matter patents and also additionally filed composition-of-matter and method of treatment patent applications related to the AZSTARYS and SDX families in the United States and in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, Hong Kong, European Countries, India, Israel, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Ukraine, and Vietnam. We anticipate filing additional patent applications for our prodrugs and product candidates covering SDX and KP1077.

License Agreements

XOMA License Agreement (MIPLYFFA)

In May 2022, we purchased all the assets and operations of Orphazyme related to arimoclomol. Prior to this acquisition, Orphazyme had entered into an asset purchase agreement with LadRx Corporation, which was assigned to XOMA (US) LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of XOMA Corporation (“XOMA”), in June 2023 (“XOMA License Agreement”). Under the XOMA License Agreement, XOMA is entitled to a mid-single digit percentage royalty with respect to net sales of MIPLYFFA as well as milestone payments based on future potential sales and regulatory milestones, including a $4.0 million regulatory milestone payment upon approval in the E.U.

13

Table of Contents

Relief License Agreement (OLPRUVA)

In connection with our acquisition of Acer, Acer and Relief entered into an exclusive license agreement on August 30, 2023 (the “Relief License Agreement”), which was assumed by Zevra. Pursuant to the Relief License Agreement, Zevra is obligated to pay royalties of 10% of U.S. net sales up to a maximum of $45.0 million, plus specified regulatory milestones, for total payments to Relief of up to $56.5 million. On April 10, 2025, the rights to this royalty were sold to Soleus Capital Management L.P.

Pursuant to the Relief License Agreement, Relief will hold exclusive development and commercialization rights for OLPRUVA in the EU, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Vatican City, Norway, Iceland, Principality of Monaco, Andorra, Gibraltar, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and North Macedonia (“Geographical Europe”). We have the right to receive a royalty of up to 10% of the net sales of OLPRUVA in Geographical Europe.

Aquestive Termination Agreement (AZSTARYS)

Under our March 2012 termination agreement with Aquestive Therapeutics (“Aquestive”), Aquestive has the right to receive a royalty amount equal to 10% of any value generated by AZSTARYS and any product candidates containing SDX. We pay Aquestive a royalty equal to 10% of the quarterly royalty payments and of the regulatory and net sales milestones we receive from Commave under the AZSTARYS License Agreement.

Commercialization

To support the launch of MIPLYFFA and OLPRUVA, we have built in-house capabilities including rare disease sales specialists who are working with prescribing clinicians and healthcare providers, as well as marketing, patient reimbursement services, market access and contracting, patient advocacy, and medical affairs teams. We continue to engage with commercial payers and governmental organizations to gain access for MIPLYFFA and OLPRUVA. We have established promotional programs to drive awareness and patient experience with MIPLYFFA and OLPRUVA including Quick Start, a thirty-day free trial program designed to provide patient experience, and other patient co-pay programs, reflecting our commitment to ensure access to innovative treatments to those in need.

We currently have an arrangement with a specialty pharmacy provider as the distributor for sales of our approved products. We, however, may establish additional specialty distributors or other retail pharmacies and certain medical centers or hospitals. In addition to distribution agreements, we may enter into arrangements with health care providers and payors that provide for government mandated and/or privately negotiated rebates with respect to the purchase of our products.

Commave’s affiliate, Corium, is leading the commercialization of AZSTARYS in the United States under the AZSTARYS License Agreement. Corium commercially launched AZSTARYS in the United States in July 2021. In December 2021, Commave sublicensed to Shanghai Ark Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. the commercialization rights in Greater China, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

We have established a targeted commercial team which is designed to fully service the patients and prescribers within the rare disease indications for which we are successful in gaining approval for our product candidates. However, if our product candidates have large potential market opportunities that would require significant marketing resources, we may conclude that the most appropriate approach to their commercialization, if they receive regulatory approval, will involve forming a commercial collaboration or strategic relationship similar to those we have entered into with Commave, or consummating some type of strategic transaction, with a larger pharmaceutical or other marketing organization. As we get closer to potential approval of our product candidates, we will work to identify and implement the most appropriate commercialization strategies that we conclude are the most desirable with regard to each specific product candidate.

Competition

Our industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We will face competition and potential competition from any number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, generic drug companies, drug delivery companies and academic and research institutions. Our competitors may develop or market drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products or product candidates and these competitors may also have significantly more resources than us and be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. We anticipate facing intense and increasing competition as new products enter the market and advanced technologies become available.

14

Table of Contents

MIPLYFFA

Soon after approval of MIPLYFFA, the FDA approved a second therapy for NPC, AQNEURSA, which is approved for the treatment of neurological manifestations of NPC in adults and pediatric patients weighing ≥15 kg and is marketed by IntraBio, Inc. While AQNEURSA has a similar indication, data included on its label has a different clinical endpoint and safety profile from MIPLYFFA. We are also aware that there are several other drug candidates in clinical development for the treatment of NPC. These include adrabetadex (Mandos), and cyclodextrin (Cyclo Therapeutics). We believe MIPLYFFA’s clinical profile, mechanism of action, and development program differentiate it within the emerging NPC treatment landscape.

OLPRUVA

OLPRUVA competes against several currently marketed, branded and generic forms of phenylbutyrate. In particular, RAVICTI, which is marketed by Amgen Inc. (formerly Horizon Therapeutics), and PHEBURANE, which is marketed by Medunik USA. We are also aware that there are drug candidates in clinical development for the potential treatment of UCDs. In addition, authorized generics of RAVICTI, marketed by Par and Lupin, entered the market in the fourth quarter of 2025.

Celiprolol

We are not aware of any active ongoing clinical trials for the treatment of VEDS.

KP1077

If approved, we intend for KP1077 to compete against XYWAV, marketed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and potentially with other products that are currently in development for the treatment of IH. KP1077 could face potential competition from any products for the treatment of IH that are currently in or which may enter into clinical development.

AZSTARYS

AZSTARYS competes against currently marketed, branded and generic methylphenidate products for the treatment of ADHD. Some of these currently marketed products include CONCERTA, marketed by J&J Innovative Medicines (formerly Jannsen), QUELBREE, marketed by Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., QUILLIVANT XR and QUILLICHEW ER, marketed by Tris Pharma, RITALIN, FOCALIN and FOCALIN XR, marketed by Novartis AG, METADATE CD, marketed by UCB SA, DAYTRANA, marketed by Noven Therapeutics, LLC, Neos Therapeutics’ CONTEMPLA XR-ODT, marketed Aytu BioScience, Inc., JORNAY PM, marketed by Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. (formerly Ironshore), and ADHANSIA XR, marketed by Adlon Therapeutics, in addition to multiple other branded and generic methylphenidate products. In addition, AZSTARYS will face potential competition from any other methylphenidate products for the treatment of ADHD that are currently in, or which may enter into clinical development.

Many of our competitors either alone or with strategic partners, have or will have substantially greater financial, technical, and human resources compared with us. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful in developing or marketing products and technologies that are more effective, safer or less costly. Additionally, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval for their products more rapidly and may achieve more widespread market acceptance. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. There are other non-pharmaceutical therapeutic approaches that are used or may be used for our targeted indications.

Manufacturing

Our manufacturing strategy is to rely on contract manufacturers to produce our approved products and product candidates for clinical trials and, if approved, drug product for commercial sale. We currently have no manufacturing facilities and limited personnel in our manufacturing department. We have contracted with third parties for the manufacture, testing, and storage of our approved products and product candidates and intend to continue to do so in the future. We expect to contract with third-party manufacturers for the manufacture of all API supply needs outside the United States if and when we receive approval from regulatory authorities outside the United States.

15

Table of Contents

Our current and any future third-party manufacturers, their facilities and all lots of drug substance and drug products used in our clinical trials are required to be in compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”) and comparable foreign regulations. The cGMP and comparable foreign regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports, and returned or salvaged products. The manufacturing facilities for our products must meet cGMP and comparable foreign requirements and FDA and foreign regulatory authorities' satisfaction before any product is approved and we can manufacture commercial products. Our current and any future third-party manufacturers are also subject to periodic inspections of facilities by the FDA and other authorities, including procedures and operations used in the testing and manufacture of our products to assess our compliance with applicable regulations.

Failure of third-party manufacturers to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements may subject us to possible legal or regulatory action, including refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters, cyber letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreements to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, refusals of government contracts and new orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and individual imprisonments.

Third-Party Payor Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of pharmaceutical products depend in significant part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, such as state and federal governmental authorities, including those that administer the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and private managed care organizations and health insurers. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for each of our product and product candidates is and will be made on a plan-by-plan basis. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Each third-party payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a drug, what amount it will pay providers for the drug, and on what tier of its formulary the drug will be placed. These decisions are influenced by the existence of multiple drug products within a therapeutic class and the net cost to the plan, including the amount of the prescription price, if any, rebated by the drug’s manufacturer. Typically, generic versions of drugs are placed in a preferred tier. The position of a drug on the formulary generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the drug and can strongly influence the adoption of a drug by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided, and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Also, third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. As a result, coverage, reimbursement and placement determinations are complex and are often the subject of extensive negotiations between the payer and the manufacturer of the drug.

Unless we enter into a strategic collaboration under which our collaborator assumes responsibility for seeking coverage and reimbursement for a given product, we will be responsible for negotiating coverage, reimbursement and placement decisions for our product candidates, if approved. Coverage, reimbursement and placement decisions for a new product are based on many factors including the coverage, reimbursement and placement of already marketed branded drugs for the same or similar indications, the safety and efficacy of the new product, availability of generics for similar indications, the clinical need for the new product and the cost-effectiveness of the product. Increasingly, both purchasers and payors are also conducting comparative clinical and cost effectiveness analyses involving application of metrics, including data on patient outcomes, provided by manufacturers.

Within the Medicare program, as self-administered drugs, our product and product candidates would be reimbursed under the expanded prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D. This program is a voluntary Medicare benefit administered by private plans that operate under contracts with the federal government. These plans develop formularies that determine which products are covered and what co-pay will apply to covered drugs. The plans have considerable discretion in establishing formularies and tiered co-pay structures, negotiating rebates with manufacturers and placing prior authorization and other restrictions on the utilization of specific products, subject to review by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), for discriminatory practices. These Part D plans negotiate discounts with drug manufacturers, which are passed on, in whole or in part, to each of the plan’s enrollees through reduced premiums.

16

Table of Contents

In order for reimbursement to be available for our products under Medicare or Medicaid, we participate in and have rebate obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and are enrolled in the 340B drug pricing program, as well as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule pricing program. The programs we participate in, as well as our obligations under these programs, are described under the risk factor “If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or other governmental pricing programs in which we participate, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines.”

Third-party payers, including the U.S. government, continue to apply downward pressure on the reimbursement of pharmaceutical products. Also, the trend towards managed health care in the United States and the concurrent growth of organizations such as health maintenance organizations may result in lower reimbursement for pharmaceutical products. We expect that these trends will continue as these payors implement various proposals or regulatory policies, including various provisions of the recent health reform legislation that affect reimbursement of these products. There are currently, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal, state and foreign proposals to implement controls on reimbursement and pricing, directly and indirectly.

In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. For example, in the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular medicinal product candidate to currently available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) which is currently governed by the national laws of the individual EU member states, is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU member states. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, has become very intense. Pharmaceutical products may face competition from lower-priced products in foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products and may also compete with imported foreign products. Furthermore, there is no assurance that a product will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be established even if coverage is available or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect the ability for manufacturers to sell products profitably. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow the price structures which prevail in the United States, and generally, prices tend to be significantly lower.

U.S. Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. The pharmaceutical products that we develop must be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) before they may be legally marketed in the United States.

U.S. Pharmaceutical Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and implementing regulations. Pharmaceutical products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial enforcement. FDA noncompliance enforcement could include a refusal to review and or approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical study hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any regulatory enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

The process required by the FDA before a non-biological pharmaceutical product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•Completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies according to Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”), and other applicable regulations;

•Submission of an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”), which must become effective before human clinical studies may begin;

17

Table of Contents

•Conduct of adequate and well-controlled human clinical studies according to current Good Clinical Practices (“GCP”), to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed pharmaceutical product for its intended use;

•Submission of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for a new pharmaceutical product;

•Satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the pharmaceutical product is produced to assess compliance with s current Good Manufacturing Practice standards (“cGMP”), to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the pharmaceutical product’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•Potential FDA inspection of the preclinical and clinical study sites that generated the data in support of the NDA; and

•FDA review and approval of the NDA.

The lengthy process of seeking required approvals and the continuing need for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial resources and approvals are inherently uncertain.

Before testing any pharmaceutical product with potential therapeutic value in humans, the pharmaceutical product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the pharmaceutical product candidate. These early studies are conducted using sound scientific procedures and require thorough documentation. The conduct of a single and repeat dose toxicology and toxicokinetic studies in animals must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLP. The pharmaceutical product sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. The IND becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA has concerns and notifies the sponsor. In such a case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns to the satisfaction of FDA before a clinical study can begin. If resolution cannot be reached within the 30-day review period, FDA can place the IND on clinical hold, or the sponsor may withdraw the application. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a pharmaceutical product candidate at any time before or during clinical studies due to safety concerns or regulatory non-compliance. Accordingly, it is not certain that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical studies to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that can lead to the suspension or termination of such clinical studies.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA to discuss progress. These meeting may occur prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 clinical development, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the sponsor to ask specific questions of the FDA, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end of Phase 2 meeting to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical (registration) trial(s) that they believe will support approval of the new drug. A sponsor may be able to request a Special Protocol Assessment (“SPA”), the purpose of which is to reach agreement with the FDA on the Phase 3 clinical trial protocol design and analyses that will form the primary basis of an efficacy claim.

According to FDA guidance for industry on the SPA process, a sponsor which meets the prerequisites may make a specific request for a SPA and provide information regarding the design and size of the proposed clinical trial. The FDA’s goal is to evaluate the protocol within 45 days of the request to assess whether the proposed trial is adequate, and that evaluation may result in discussions and a request for additional information. A SPA request must be made before the proposed trial begins, and all open issues must be resolved before the trial begins. If a written agreement is reached, it will be documented and made part of the IND record. The agreement will be binding on the FDA and may not be changed by the sponsor or the FDA after the trial begins except with the written agreement of the sponsor and the FDA or if the FDA determines that a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or efficacy of the drug was identified after the testing began.

18

Table of Contents

Conducting Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are voluntary research studies involving the administration of the pharmaceutical product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, typically physicians independent of the clinical study sponsor’s control. Clinical studies are conducted according to protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, how the results will be analyzed and presented and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements. Further, each clinical study must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”), at, or servicing, each institution at which the clinical study will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of study participants and is tasked with considering such items as whether the safety risks to individuals participating in the clinical studies are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB approves the informed consent that must be provided to each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative and will also monitor the clinical study to ensure patient safety until completed.

In general, for purposes of NDA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

•Phase 1 - The pharmaceutical product is initially administered to healthy volunteers and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion.

•Phase 2 - The pharmaceutical product is studied in a limited patient population with the disease or condition to evaluate its effectiveness for a particular indication or indications and to determine the common short-term side effects and risks associated with the product.

•Phase 3 - Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. These clinical studies are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling. The studies must be well-controlled and usually include a control arm for comparison. One or two Phase 3 studies may be required by the FDA for an NDA, depending on the disease severity and other available treatment options.

•Post-approval studies, or Phase 4 clinical studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication.

•Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical studies must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical studies may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical study at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical study at its institution if the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the pharmaceutical product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Concurrent with clinical studies, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the pharmaceutical product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the pharmaceutical product candidate and, among other things, must include methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final pharmaceutical product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the pharmaceutical product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. Review and Approval Processes

The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the pharmaceutical product, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances.

19

Table of Contents

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), an NDA or a supplement thereof must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the pharmaceutical 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. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any pharmaceutical product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting an NDA for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), the FDA has 10 months in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months for a priority NDA. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or if the NDA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel pharmaceutical products or pharmaceutical products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and 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. During the pharmaceutical product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”), is necessary to assure the safe use of the pharmaceutical product. If the FDA concludes that a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the NDA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product 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.

Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs. If the FDA determines the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities, or clinical study sites are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. In addition, the FDA will require the review and approval of product labeling.

The NDA review and approval process is lengthy and involved and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical data or other data and information. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than the sponsor interprets the same data. The FDA will issue a complete response letter if the agency decides not to approve the NDA. The complete response letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical studies.

Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may require Phase 4 testing which involves clinical trials designed to further assess pharmaceutical product safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

20

Table of Contents

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new pharmaceutical products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new pharmaceutical 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. The Fast Track designation must be requested by the sponsor. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. With a Fast Track designated product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, if the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and if the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing approval, including a Fast Track program, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new pharmaceutical product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Pharmaceutical products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that the products may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product 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. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a pharmaceutical product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast Track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

The FDA is also required to expedite the development and review of the application for approval of drugs that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Under the breakthrough therapy program, the sponsor of a new product candidate may request that the FDA designate the product candidate for a specific indication as a breakthrough therapy concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the product candidate. The FDA must determine if the product candidate qualifies for breakthrough therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition affecting fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or in other limited cases. Orphan drug designation (ODD) provides for seven years of market exclusivity, independent of patent protection, to the company with ODD that brings a particular product to market. In addition, companies developing orphan drugs are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing.

To gain exclusivity, if a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to the orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biologic for the same approved use or indication within such rare disease or condition for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as another drug’s showing of clinical superiority over the drug with orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity could block the approval of one of our product candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for a drug or biologic with the same active moiety for the same approved use or indication within the rare disease or condition before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior.

21

Table of Contents

A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the approved use or indication within the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first, approved product. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation, and only the first sponsor that obtains approval for that drug for the orphan indication will obtain market exclusivity, effectively preventing the FDA from approving products under development by competitors for a drug or biologic for the same approved use or indication, unless the competitor is able to demonstrate that the product under development is clinically superior to the approved product or the approved product is not available in sufficient quantities. To permit the FDA to end another manufacturer’s orphan exclusivity period, the FDA must determine that the manufacturer has demonstrated clinical superiority by showing the later drug is safer, more effective, or otherwise makes a major contribution to patient care.

The period of exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the approved use or indication within the rare disease or condition for which the product has been designated. The FDA may approve a second application for the same product for a different use or a subsequent application for a different drug for the same indication. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process..

We may plan to pursue orphan drug designation and exclusivity for some of our product candidates in the United States, European Union, and other geographies of interest for specific products. We cannot guarantee that we will obtain orphan drug designation for any products in any jurisdiction. Even if we are able to obtain orphan drug designation for a product, we cannot be sure that such product will be approved, that we will be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity upon approval, if ever, or that we will be able to maintain any exclusivity that is granted.

Post-Approval Requirements

After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual human prescription drug program fee requirements for approved products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and to list their drug products and are subject to periodic announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements, which impose procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP regulations and other FDA regulatory requirements.

Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented, or FDA notification. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and specifications and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort on production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

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 withdrawal of marketing approval, mandatory revisions to the approved labeling, imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program, among other consequences.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing and promotion of drugs. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA. Physicians, in their independent professional medical judgment, may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products, including samples, is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”), which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. The Drug Supply Chain Security Act also imposes obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing.

22

Table of Contents

Failure to comply with any of the FDA’s requirements could result in significant adverse enforcement actions. These include a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, refusals of government contracts and new orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and individual imprisonment. Any of these sanctions could result in adverse publicity, among other adverse consequences.

Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program

In 2012, the U.S. Congress authorized the FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of certain rare pediatric disease product applications. This program is designed to encourage development of new drug and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain rare pediatric diseases. Specifically, under this program, a sponsor who receives an approval for a drug or biologic for a “rare pediatric disease” may qualify for a voucher that can be redeemed to receive priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product. The sponsor of a rare pediatric disease drug product receiving a priority review voucher may transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another sponsor. The voucher may be further transferred any number of times before the voucher is used, as long as the sponsor making the transfer has not yet submitted the application. The FDA may also revoke any priority review voucher if the rare pediatric disease drug for which the voucher was awarded is not marketed in the United States within one year following the date of approval.

For purposes of this program, a “rare pediatric disease” is a (a) serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious or life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years, including age groups often called neonates, infants, children, and adolescents; and (b) rare diseases or conditions within the meaning of the Orphan Drug Act. Congress has only authorized the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher program until September 30, 2029. Consequently, unless Congress reauthorizes the program, the sponsor of a marketing application for a drug that receives Rare Pediatric Disease Designation will only be eligible to receive a voucher if the FDA grants the designation on or before September 30, 2029.

DEA Regulation

Our products and certain of our product candidates are, or if approved, will be regulated as “controlled substances” as defined in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (“CSA”), and the DEA’s implementing regulations, which establish registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation, inventory, quota and other requirements administered by the DEA. These requirements are directly applicable to us and also applicable to our contract manufacturers and to distributors, prescribers and dispensers of our products and product candidates. The DEA regulates the handling of controlled substances through a closed chain of distribution. This control extends to the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce.

The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Schedule II drugs are those that meet the following criteria:

•the drug has a high potential for abuse;

•the drug has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions; and

•abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Other Healthcare Regulatory Frameworks

Our business activities, including but not limited to, research, sales, promotion, distribution, medical education and other activities are subject to regulation by numerous regulatory and law enforcement authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including potentially the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its various divisions, including the CMS and the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and state and local governments. Our business activities must comply with numerous healthcare laws, including those described below. Compliance with government regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

23

Table of Contents

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, the referral of an individual for, or purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of, any good, facility, item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Additionally, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, or the specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation.

The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the federal False Claims Act, which can be enforced by private citizens through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. In addition, a claim for payment of items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act.

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

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of whether the payor is public or private, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a health care benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act and its implementing regulations, require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with specified exceptions) to report annually information related to specified payments or other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other healthcare providers (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants, and certified nurse-midwives) and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, such providers and teaching hospitals and to report annually specified ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

Depending on the circumstances, failure to comply with these laws can result in significant penalties, including criminal, civil and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, debarment from government contracts, individual imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, exclusion from government programs, refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business.

24

Table of Contents

Data Privacy and Security Law

We are subject to data privacy and security laws, regulations, and standards by foreign, federal, state and local governments that govern the collection, use, access to, confidentiality and security of health-related and other personal information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws and consumer protection laws and regulations govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Healthcare Reform Measures

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals designed to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

For example, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which has substantially changed health care financing by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affected the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for specified branded prescription drugs, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, expanded health care fraud and abuse laws, revised the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers to the state and federal government for covered outpatient drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated, imposed an inflation penalty on new formulations of drugs, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, expanded the 340B program which caps the price at which manufacturers can sell covered outpatient pharmaceuticals to specified hospitals, clinics and community health centers, and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

Since its enactment there have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect in April 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2032 with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020, through March 31, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. In addition, in January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several categories of healthcare providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price.

Further, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”), of 2022, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), 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 (which began in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. CMS has published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which will first be effective in 2026, and the list of the subsequent 15 drugs that will be subject to negotiation, although the drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure, drug price increase reporting and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states.

25

Table of Contents

We expect that additional state, federal and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal, state and foreign governments will pay for healthcare product candidates and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressures.

On December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. The Regulation entered into force in January 2022, and has been applicable since January 2025, with a phased implementation based on the type of product, i.e. oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products as of 2025, orphan medicinal products as of 2028, and all other medicinal products by 2030. The Regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It permits EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the highest potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

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

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products to the extent we choose to develop or sell any products outside of the United States. The foreign regulatory approval process includes all of the risks associated with FDA approval set forth above, as well as additional country-specific regulation.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required to obtain FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

EU Non-clinical Studies and Clinical Trials

Similarly to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice (“GLP”) as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products, e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines on Good Clinical Practices as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU member states, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

26

Table of Contents

The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”) which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.

While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application (“CTA”) to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.

The CTR transition period ended on January 31, 2025, and all clinical trials (and related applications) are now fully subject to the provisions of the CTR. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”). Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

EU Marketing Authorization

In order to market our product candidates in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EU, medicinal product candidates can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization (“MA”). To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a MA application (“MAA”). The process for this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs:

•“Centralized MAs” are issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) and are valid throughout the EU. The centralized procedure is compulsory for certain types of medicinal products such as (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) designated orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”) (such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products) and (iv) medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.

•“National MAs” are issued by the competent authorities of the EU member states, only cover their respective territory, and are available for product candidates not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in an EU member state, this national MA can be recognized in another member state through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any member state at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various member states through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the member states in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the reference member state.

Under the above-described procedures, in order to grant the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the EU member states make an assessment of the risk benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed based on a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

27

Table of Contents

Failure to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

EU Data and Marketing Exclusivity

In the EU, new products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon MA. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic and biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications, which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical or biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

EU Orphan Medicinal Products

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. A medicinal product can be designated as an orphan if its sponsor can establish that: (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life threatening or chronically debilitating condition (2) either (a) such condition affects not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from the orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an MAA. An EU orphan designation entitles a party to incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized procedure. Upon grant of a MA, orphan medicinal products are entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved indication, which means that the competent authorities cannot accept another MAA, or grant a MA, or accept an application to extend a MA for a similar medicinal product for the same indication for a period of ten years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”). No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted based on pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The orphan exclusivity period may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for which it received orphan destination, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

EU Pediatric Development

In the EU, MAAs for new medicinal products must include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a PIP agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all the EU member states and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension (if any is in effect at the time of approval) or, in the case of orphan pharmaceutical products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity is granted.

28

Table of Contents

EU Controlled Substances

The EU legislation does not establish different classes of narcotic or psychotropic substances. However, the United Nations (“UN”) Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (“UN Conventions”) codify internationally applicable control measures to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes. The individual EU member states are all signatories to these UN Conventions. All signatories have a dual obligation to ensure that these substances are available for medical purposes and to protect populations against abuse and dependence. The UN Conventions regulate narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV substances with Schedule II substances presenting the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances and Schedule I and IV substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse. The UN Conventions require signatories to require all persons manufacturing, trading (including exporting and importing) or distributing controlled substances to obtain a license from the relevant authority. Each individual export or import of a controlled substance must also be subject to an authorization. The obligations provided in the UN Conventions and additional requirements are implemented at national level and requirements may vary from one member state to another.

Employees

As of December 31, 2025, we employed 61 full-time employees.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Iowa in October 2006 and were reincorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in May 2014. We changed our name from KemPharm, Inc. to Zevra Therapeutics, Inc. effective as of February 21, 2023. Our website address is www.zevra.com.